STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 


REPORT  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF  THE 


Joint  Legislative  Committee  to  Investigate 
the  Affairs  of  the  City  of  New  York 

ON  THE 

I 

BOARD  OF  EDUCATION 
February  15,  1922 


ALBANY 

J.  B.  LYON  COMPANY,  PRINTERS 
1922 


%  I 

I 


«« 


14  pi? 


319.7*17/ 

y\ 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

REPORT .  5 

APPENDIX .  17 

Education  under  the  Greater  New  York  Charter .  17 

Education  under  Chapter  786,  Laws  of  1917  as  amended .  22 

Inadequate  School  Accommodations .  31 

Fire  Hazards  in  the  Schools . . .  39 

Failure  to  Repair  Fire  Damage  to  Board  of  Education  Building .  43 

Incomplete  By-Laws  and  Delayed  Minutes .  45 

Conflict  between  Board  and  Superintendent .  47 

Conflict  between  Board  and  Municipal  Authorities .  50 

Administration  of  Public  School  System .  58 

Limitation  of  Powers  of  Board  of  Education . 58 

Increase  in  the  Powers  of  School  Superintendents .  58 

i  Perpetuation  of  Board  of  Superintendents .  58 

Perpetuation  of  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education .  59 

Controversy  over  State  School  Moneys .  60 

Increase  in  Mandatory  Appropriation  to  4.9  mills .  61 

Historical  Development  of  Article  IX,  Section  1  of  State  Constitution .  68 

Dutch  Colonial  Period .  70 

English  Colonial  Period .  70 

Education  under  the  First  Constitution .  71 

Education  under  the  Second  Constitution .  74 

Education  under  the  Third  Constitution .  75 

Summary .  77 

Evolution  of  Public  Education  in  the  Present  City  of  New  York .  79 

The  Former  City  of  NewT  York .  79 

Brooklyn .  88 

Queens  and  Richmond . 91 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/reportrecommenda00newy_1 


I 


REPORT 


February  15,  1922. 

To  the  Legislature: 

The  administration  of  the  public  schools  of  the  City  is  and 
for  years  has  been  weak  and  inefficient,  and  does  not  measure  up 
to  the  reasonable  requirements  of  the  school  children  of  the  City, 
or  the  expectations  and  desires  of  the  people  of  the  City,  or  of 
the  State  which  is  charged  with  ultimate  responsibility  for  main¬ 
taining  efficient  and  adequate  common  schools  in  every  part  of 
the  State. 

The  deficiencies  are  apparent. 

A.  INADEQUATE  SCHOOL  ACCOMMODATIONS. 

In  December,  1917,  the  month  before  the  present  Board  of 
Education  took  office,  there  were  746,114  children  registered 
in  the  day  elementary  schools,  of  whom  34,153  were  on  part  time 
and  76,214  on  the  so-called  duplicate  form  of  organization.  In 
the  last  month  for  which  figures  are  now  available  there  were 
817,210  children  on  register  in  the  day  elementary  schools,  of 
whom  81,242  were  on  part  time  and  194,234  on  double  session. 

In  the  day  high  schools  there  were  58,063  registered  in  Decem¬ 
ber,  1917,  none  of  whom  were  on  double  session  and  only  1,796 
were  on  part  time.  In  October,  1921,  the  register  had  increased 
to  82,265  and  there  were  1,516  children  on  double  session  and 
33,892  on  part  time. 

These  figures  show  insufficient  school  accommodations  to  care 
for  the  growth  of  school  population. 

The  capacity  of  new  elementary  school  buildings  and  additions 
opened  during  the  past  four  years  is  as  follows : 

No.  of  New  Buildings  No.  of  Sittings 


Year  or  Additions  Opened  .  Therein 

1918  .  2  1,294 

1919  .  4  1,380 

1920  .  None  None 

1921  to  Dec.  6 .  16*  19,203 

-  r  - - 

Total .  22  21.877 


*  Of  the  16  opened  in  1921,  all  but  two  were  opened  after  September  1st. 


6 


During  the  preceding  four  years,  44  new  elementary  buildings 
or  additions  were  opened,  with  52,847  sittings,  a  better,  but  still 
inadequate  showing. 

This  unfortunate  condition  is  only  partly  due  to  lack  of  appro¬ 
priations.  Exasperating  delays  and  a  shifting  policy  are  equally 
responsible.  The  total  corporate  stock  authorizations  from  Janu¬ 
ary  1,  1910,  to  June  30,  1921,  for  school  buildings  amounted  to 
$68,744,732.11,  while  the  expenditures  during  the  same  period 
amounted  to  only  $46,092,839.88.  Fifteen  million  of  this 
authorization  was  made  in  1921,  but  the  ten  million  authoriza¬ 
tion  of  earlier  years  was  revoked  on  December  30,  1918,  without 
the  expenditure  of  any  part  of  it  in  the  meantime,  and 
was  subsequently  appropriated  for  the  same  purposes  for  which 
it  was  originally  designed.  This  resulted  in  holding  up  the  build¬ 
ing  program  at  the  time  of  its  greatest  need.  A  detailed  state¬ 
ment  of  the  authorizations  and  cash  expenditure  from  1910  to 
1921  will  be  found  on  page  38  of  the  appendix. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  expenditures  of  the  three  and  a  half 
years,  1918  to  July,  1921,  were  but  $15,224,331.97,  which,  in 
view  of  the  depreciated  value  of  the  dollar,  represents  not  more 
than  $8,000,000  in  building  value  on  the  basis  of  1910  to  1917,  * 

or  about  one-half  of  the  previous  four-year  totals. 

The  average  annual  authorization  for  the  eleven  and  a  half 
years  covered  in  the  annexed  table  was  $5,977,802.79  and  the  'i 
average  annual  expenditure  $4,008,073.03. 

The  inadequacy  of  school  buildings  has  inevitably  resulted  in 

( 1)  Inadequate  instruction,  keeping  scholars  on  part  time. 

(2)  Overcrowding  of  the  school  buildings  with  resulting  dan¬ 
ger  to  sanitation  and  health. 


B.  FIRE  HAZARDS. 

In  August,  1921,  there  were  7,353  violations  of  fire  prevention 
rules  recorded  against  496  of  the  City’s  695  school  build¬ 
ings.  The  estimated  cost  of  removing  these  violations  is  about 
$4,500,000.  Some  of  the  violations  are  serious,  as,  for  example, 
stairways  that  are  not  enclosed  with  fire  and  smoke-proof  parti- 


t 


I 


tions  and  not  provided  with  self-closing  doors ;  interior  fire  alarm 
systems  that  do  not  work ;  wooden  and  not  self-closing  fireproof 
doors  along  the  line  of  exit  stairways;  no  hand  fire  extinguishers; 
and  storage  of  dangerously  inflammable  materials  in  non-fireproof 
rooms  or  compartments.  The  Superintendent  of  School  Build¬ 
ings  wrote  the  Board  of  Education,  March  23,  1921,  as  follows: 

u  This  with  the  continued  growth  of  the  schools  and  con¬ 
sequent  overcrowding  and  congestion  causes  me  great  uneasi¬ 
ness  and  distress  of  mind.  If  the  fire  prevention  work  was 
and  is  required  for  schools  under  normal  conditions,  how 
much  more  important  must  it  be  when  a  building  contains 
quite  one-half  or  more  in  excess  of  the  normal  .  .  .  why 

paint  and  renovate  the  interior  of  a  building  when  there  are 
essential  items  of  fire  prevention  work  to  he  performed  which 
would  actual] v  operate  to  safeguard  life  and  lessen  fire 
-  risk  ?  ” 

The  total  authorizations  and  expenditures  for  fire  prevention 
work  since  September  16,  1904,  is  as  follows: 


Date  of  Amount  of 

Authorization  Authorization  Expenditures  Balance 

Sept.  16,  1904 .  $300,000  00  $300,000  00  . 

550,  000  00  550,  000  00  . 

April  3,  1908 .  1,000,000  00  1.000,000  00  . 

June  3,1910 .  450,000  00  450,000  00  . 

July  17,1911 .  450,000  00  447,666  59  $2,333  41 

Nov.  19,1915 .  250,000  00  250,000  00  . 

July  7.  1916 .  250,000  00  250,000  00  . 

April  20,  1917 .  250,000  00  240,660  85  9,339  15 

April  22,  1921 .  250,000  00  .  250,000  00 


C.  NEGLIGENT  ADMINISTRATION. 

Other  deficiencies  of  administration  appear  from  the  failure 
to  repair  the  education  building,  and  the  condition  of  by-laws  and 
minutes  of  the  Board  of  Education.  In  February,  1918,  the 
seventh,  eighth  and  ninth  floors  of  the  Hall  of  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation,  at  500  Park  Avenue,  housing  the  executive  offices  of  the 
Board,  were  burned  out.  Bids  for  the  rebuilding  of  these  floors 
were  not  opened  until  December  7,  1921,  nearly  four  years  after 
the  fire.  During  this  interval  the  work  of  the  Board  has  been 
seriously  interfered  with  because  of  compulsory  vacancy  of  the 
three  top  floors  of  its  building.  The  Bureau  of  School  Buildings 
had  to  be  moved  to  inadequate  quarters  in  the  Municipal  Build¬ 
ing,  several  miles  away  from  the  other  offices  of  the  Board.  The 


8 


delay  in  agreeing  on  new  plans,  in  securing  an  appropriation  and 
in  letting  the  contract  is  open  to  serious  criticism.  No  business 
corporation  would  tolerate  such  methods.  See  testimony  of 
President  of  Board  of  Education,  vol.  3,  p.  1321. 

The  law  of  1917  so  changed  the  organization  of  the  school  sys¬ 
tem  that  a  complete  revision  of  the  by-laws  was  necessary  in  order 
to  make  them  conform  with  the  new  statute.  This  revision  has 
not  been  made.  A  few  sections  were  revised  but  the  bulk  of  the 
by-laws  was  still  in  the  form  of  a  large  octavo  volume  published 
in  1914  with  hundreds  of  amendment  slips  pasted  in,  many  of 
which  antedate  the  law  of  1917. 

The  minutes  of  Board  meetings  are  records  of  great  im¬ 
portance  to  teachers,  board  members,  board  officers  and  city 
authorities,  as  they  have  the  force  of  law  within  the  scope  of  the 
powers  delegated  to  the  Board  of  Education  by  the  Legislature. 
The  last  volume  of  minutes  to  be  furnished  with  a  printed  index 
is  that  for  1915.  The  minutes  of  board  meetings  are  not  or¬ 
dinarily  available  until  two  months  after  the  meeting. 

Such  conditions  could  not  exist  with  a  capable  Board.  They 
have  failed  not  only  in  matters  wholly  in  their  control,  but  they 
show  no  capacity  to  secure  effective  administration  through  the 
co-operation  of  other  governmental  agencies  on  which  they  de¬ 
pend,  or  to  secure  the  enactment  of  better  laws  by  inspiring  public 
confidence  and  arousing  public  opinion.  They  have  shown  little 
or  no  capacity  for  leadership  for  many  years  in  the  discharge  of 
the  important  trust  confided  to  them. 

Unsound  Legislation, 

Responsibility  for  such  conditions  may  not  be  easily  appor¬ 
tioned.  It  doubtless  rests  primarily  on  the  system  of  making 
purely  political  appointments  to  the  Board  of  Education.  Such 
appointments  are  made  without  any  check  of  non-partisan  ap¬ 
proval  or  confirmation.  Each  incoming  mayor  seeks,  and  usually 
gains,  a  large  degree  of  political  control  over  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion.  The  members  of  the  present  Board  were  all  appointed  by 
the  present  Mayor  under  the  amendment  of  1917.  Such  political 
appointments  are  in  strict  accord  with  the  ancient  plan  of  dele¬ 
gating  educational  functions  to  localities,  but  the  State  has 
largely  outgrown  and  changed  the  system  by  increasing  State 
power  over  local  administration,  while  furnishing  State  aid  to 
meet  new  requirements  imposed  by  law.  The  old  system  is  not 


adapted  in  principle  to  a  municipality  like  New  York.  State 
jurisdiction  over  schools  is  exercised  by  the  University  of  the 
State,  which  is  non-partisan  in  its  organization  and  spirit.  Some 
plan  should  be  devised  for  the  creation  of  an  equally  non-partisan 
and  representative  body  in  the  City. 

Apart  from  this  basic  fault,  it  is  desirable  to  review  some 
specific  faults  of  organization,  which  should  be  removed  to  give 
assurance  that  a  competent  board  could  successfully  discharge 
its  dutv. 

1/ 

1.  COMPLICATED  AND  ANTIQUATED  PROVISIONS 
OF  LAW  REQUIRING  THE  CO-OPERATION  OF  MANY 
OTHER  BRANCHES  OF  THE  CITY  GOVERNMENT  IN 
BUILDING  OPERATIONS  WITH  RESULTING  DELAYS, 
OFTEN  AMOUNTING  TO  A  VETO  OF  A  BUILDING 
PROJECT. 

The  first  and  most  important  of  these  objectionable  provisions 
is  the  provision  of  law  making  the  Board  of  Education  dependent 
upon  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  the  Sinking  Fund 
Commission  for  appropriations  and  acquisitions  of  sites  for 
school  houses.  There  is  a  general  concurrence  in  the  necessity  of 
making  the  Board  of  Education  independent  in  this  respect.  It 
may  therefore  be  assumed  that  there  is  but  one  opinion  upon  the 
subject,  and  that  the  necessity  is  great.  The  Committee  inquired 
with  particularity  as  to  the  steps  required  to  be  taken  to  build  a 
school  house,  and  found  that  there  were  at  least  twenty-seven, 
each  one  involving  considerable  delay  and  the  whole  practice 
likely  to  discourage  those  who  were  engaged  in  the  undertaking. 
Most  of  them  are  unnecessary  for  the  protection  of  the  City's 
interest,  and  hinder  the  prompt  building  of  school  houses.  An 
exhibit  showing  these  steps  in  detail  will  be  found  on  page  36 
of  the  appendix. 

In  two  instances  it  was  found  that  twenty  years  or  more  had 
elapsed  from  the  time  the  recommendation  for  a  new  building 
was  made  by  a  local  school  board  and  the  time  when  the  building 
was  opened  for  use.  P.  S.  No.  54,  Brooklyn,  for  example,  was 
recommended  by  the  school  board  of  Brooklyn  in  1901 ;  the  con¬ 
tract  date  for  its  completion  is  September,  1922. 

Examination  of  the  record  of  some  twenty  schools  on  the  cur¬ 
rent  building  program  shows  that  plans  and  specifications  were 
before  the  Board  of  Estimate  in  one  instance  for  356  davs,  an- 

•/  7 


10 


other  for  211  days,  and  in  eight  eases  for  more  than  50  days. 
This  did  not  take  into  account  the  time  between  the  return  by 
the  Board  of  Estimate  and  a  resubmission  by  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation.  In  one  case  the  same  matter  was  four  times  before  the 
Board  of  Estimate.  In  four  other  cases  the  same  matter  was 
before  the  Board  of  Estimate  three  times. 


2.  STATE  TOBY  POWERS  PROPERLY  BELOXG1XG 
TO  THE  BOARD  OF  E DUCAT] OX  XOW  VESTED  IX 
BODIES  OR  OFFICIALS  XOMIXALLY  SUB  OR  DIX  ATE 


TO  THE  BOARD  BUT  IX  FACT  SUPERIOR  IX  RESPECT 
OF  SUCH  POWERS. 

The  superintendent  of  schools,  the  Board  of  Superintendents, 
and  the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education,  all  have  a  fixed  tenure 
of  office,  and  although  chosen  by  the  Board,  possess  important 
powers  of  administration  which  are  exercised  independently  of 
and  often  in  opposition  to  the  desires  of  the  Board  itself. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  enumerate  these  important  powers  which 
are  readily  referred  to  in  the  statute,  and  have  been  freouentlv 
the  cause  of  conflict  between  the  boards  and  officials  named  and 
the  Board  of  Education.  Many  of  these  powers  are  among  the 
most  important  exercised  in  the  administration  of  the  schools. 


3.  FBEQUEXT  CHAXGES  AX  I)  COXFLICT  OF  LAWS 
GOYERXIXG  THE  ADMIXISTRATIOX  OF  SCHOOLS. 

The  Board  of  Education  originally  consisted  of  nineteen  mem- 

o  «y 

bers.  It  was  changed  in  1901  to  fortv-six  members,  and  in  1917 
to  seven  members.  The  charter  was  radically  revised  in  1897 
and  in  1901,  and  its  provisions  extensively  modified  by  amend¬ 
ments  to  the  State  Education  Law  in  1917,  each  change  involving 
important  changes  in  the  plan  of  administration  of  the  schools 
and  their  relation  to  other  city  agencies  and  the  State.  A  com¬ 
parative  statement  of  the  principal  changes  effected  by  the  statute 
of  1917  in  the  law  of  1901  will  be  found  on  page  22  of  the 
appendix. 

Under  the  act  of  1917  conflicts  have  arisen  by  reason  of  the 
uncertainty  of  the  law  between  the  Board  of  Education  and  the 
Commissioner  of  Education  at  Albany,  between  the  Board  of 
Education  and  the  municipal  authorities  relative  to  their  respect¬ 
ive  powers,  and  between  the  Board  of  Education  and  the  superin- 


11 


tendent  of  schools,  if  not  between  the  Board  of  Education  and 
the  Board  of  Superintendents  and  associate  superintendents. 

There  has  been  a  failure  to  concentrate  in  clear  and  unmis¬ 
takable  language  the  full  responsibility  for  the  administration  of 
the  public  school  system  on  the  Board  of  Education,  the  municipal 
authorities,  or  the  State.  Groping  for  a  remedy  they  have  found 
none  because  the  fundamental  error  of  appointing  a  political 
Board  of  Education  has  remained. 

Finances. 

Fortunately  the  financial  statement  for  education  in  the  City 
is  not  complicated.  The  expenditures  since  1910  have  been  as 
follows : 

Year 

1910  . 

1911  . 

1912  . 

1913  . 

1914  . 

1915  . 

1916  . 

1917  . 

1918  . 

1919  . 

1920  . 

1921  (first  6  mos.) 

1922  (budget).... 

*  Including  $18,097,534.51  from  the  State. 

The  normal  increase  for  the  years  1920,  1921  and  1922  lias 
been  augmented  by  the  Lockwood-Donohue  act  in  the  sum  of 
$30,000,000.  This  has  been  devoted  to  the  pay  of  teachers.  The 
annual  normal  increase  may  be  roughly  taken  as  $2,000,000. 

The  apportionment  of  State  moneys  to  the  City  since  1914  has 
been  as  follows : 


Expenditures. 

$28,456,945  68 
28,958,179  29 
33,791,974  40 
35,481,641  12 
38,185,495  90 
39,797,960  64 
39,708,764  22 
41,101,074  41 
43,884,893  59 
45,490,121  68 
66,194,668  04 
44,828,326  69 
*88,798,546  81 


Amount  Apportioned 


'  erir  to  the  City 

1914  . $1,923,025  00 

1915  .  2,115,679  73 

1916  .  2,220,730  03 

1917  .  2,414,837  16 

1918  .  2,321,191  13 

1919  .  2,700,657  19 

1920  .  5,025,570  17 

1921  .  16,938,023  85 

1922  .  *18.097,534  51 


*  Estimated. 

The  increase  of  apportionment  for  1922  over  1919,  the  period 
during  which  the  mandatory  increase  due  to  legislation  has  oc¬ 
curred,  has  been  about  $15,000,000,  or  one-half  of  the  amount  of 
the  increased  charge  due  to  these  laws. 

The  City  complains  of  the  increase  effected  by  law.  As  educa¬ 
tion  is  a  State  function,  although  commonly  delegated  to  munici¬ 
palities,  it  would  appear  that  when  the  State  interferes  to  increase 
the  cost  of  education  in  so  considerable  an  amount,  it  should  pro¬ 
vide  ways  and  means  for  defraying  such  additional  expenses  with¬ 
out  embarrassment  to  the  municipalities.  The  State’s  taxing- 
power  is  unlimited,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference 
to  any  part  of  the  State  whether  the  funds  for  education  are 
raised  bv  State  or  local  tax. 

c / 

The  constitution  limits  the  debt  incurring  power  of  cities  to  ten 
per  cent  of  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate,  and  the  taxing  power 
to  two  per  cent  of  the  assessed  value  of  real  and  personal  property. 
These  limitations  which  are  proper  and  useful,  were  enacted  with 
reference  to  the  normal  expense  for  education.  Such  increase  in 
cost  is  the  result  of  a  change  of  policy  in  the  entire  State  as  to1  the 
standard  of  teaching,  which  it  is  expected  will  be  much  improved 
by  making  the  teachers’  profession  more  attractive.  It  is  true  that 
this  augmented  cost  was  favored  by  substantially  all  the  members 
of  the  legislature  from  the  City,  and  the  present  administration  of 
the  City  claims  to  have  favored  it ;  but  it  was  done  by  State  author¬ 
ity,  and  the  Committee  finds  no  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the 
additional  expense  would  in  fact  have  been  incurred  in  the  absence 
of  legislative  enactment.  It  doubtless  seems  strange  to  one  un¬ 
familiar  with  the  real  financial  situation  of  the  City  and  such  an 


13 


increased  charge  should  he  a  source  of  embarrassment.  The  City 
has  a  debt  incurring  capacity  of  more  than  a  billion  dollars,  a 
taxing  capacity  of  more  than  two  hundred  million  dollars,  and  an 
unencumbered  income  of  more  than  sixty  millions.  But  by  reason 
of  the  course  of  past  and  present  administrations,  the  City  has  been 
for  some  years  past  near  its  debt  limit,  if  it  has  not  exceeded  it, 
and  grave  question  exists  as  to  its  having  exceeded  its  tax  limit  in 
the  last  two  annual  assessments. 

In  preparing  the  budget  for  1921,  the  City  under  claim  of  neces¬ 
sity,  omitted  $27,000,000  from  the  school  appropriation,  and  met 
it  afterwards  by  special  revenue  bonds,  and  other  devices,  throwing 
most  of  the  charge  over  on  to  the  year  1922.  The  Comptroller  ad¬ 
vised  striking  ten  million  dollars  from  the  1922  budget  for  educa- 
tion  on  the  ground  that  otherwise  the  tax  imposed  would  exceed 
the  constitutional  limit.  It  is  unadvisable  at  present  to  increase 
charges  upon  the  City  and  it  would  seem  to  be  desirable  for  the 
State  to  establish  a  plan  of  appropriations  increasing  annually 
until  it  is  sufficient  to  meet  the  additional  charge  for  education  it 
has  created  since  1920. 

While  this  report  is  confined  to  matters  relating  to  the  City  of 
New  York,  there  is  a  like  situation  in  other  parts  of  the  State,  and 
the  problem  of  providing  for  the  cost  of  education  under  these 
laws  will  require  solution  in  other  important  muncipalities.  It  is 
therefore  a  State  as  well  as  a  City  issue. 

The  legislature  has  from  time  to  time  fixed  a  mandatory  tax  for 
school  purposes  in  the  City.  It  fixed  the  tax  at  four  mills  in  1898, 
three  mills  in  1903,  and  4.9  mills  in  1917.  These  charges  were 
made  in  the  exercise  of  State  authority  to  insure  the  maintenance 
of  schools,  but  they  may  be  regarded  as  representing  a  minimum 
below  which  the  cost  of  education  may  not  be  reduced  rather  than 
as  an  attempt  to  increase  the  expenditure.  For  the  most  part  the 
City  has  made  considerable  and  in  many  instances  large  appropria¬ 
tions  for  schools  in  excess  of  the  mandatory  tax. 


Non-Political  Board  of  Education. 

The  problem  of  securing  a  Board  of  Education  for  the  City 
which  shall  stand  for  education  free  from  political  considerations, 
is  the  fundamental  one.  As  the  University  of  the  State  is  the 
State-wide  instrument  of  control  in  education  the  members  of 
the  University  of  the  State  resident  in  the  City,  now  four  in 
number,  can  with  the  Mayor  who  should  be  chairman  of  the 


14 


Commission,  be  drafted  into  service  as  a  Commission  to  appoint 
members  of  the  City  Board  of  Education.  This  will  give  local 
recognition  by  requiring  all  members  of  the  Commission  to  reside 
in  the  city.  By  taking  over  as  members  of  the  Commission  resi¬ 
dents  of  the  city  who  are  members  of  the  Board  of  Regents  it 
will  insure  the  performance  of  the  State’s  obligation  and  duty 
in  education,  now  greatly  increased  by  the  added  burden  of  cost 
which  the  State  assumes.  But  more  important  than  all  else,  it 
will  take  politics  out  of  schools. 

Recommendations 

1.  The  Committee  recommends  that  the  Board  of  Education  of 
the  City  of  New  York  consist  of  members  appointed  by  the  Com¬ 
mission  as  provided  in  this  report. 

2.  That  the  Board  of  Education  be  granted  complete  inde¬ 
pendence  from  all  municipal  control  in  the  acquisition  of  real 
property  for  school  purposes,  by  purchase,  condemnation,  lease 
or  otherwise,  within  the  limit  of  the  funds  available  therefor. 

3.  That  the  Board  of  Education  be  granted  complete  inde¬ 
pendence  from  all  municipal  control  in  the  construction,  alteration 
and  repair  of  school  buildings,  provided  that  its  superintendent  of 
school  buildings,  before  starting  work,  certify  in  writing  that  the 
plans  and  specifications  comply  with  the  building  and  electrical 
codes  and  the  laws  of  the  State;  and  provided  further  that 
occupancy  shall  not  be  permitted  until  the  superintendent  of 
school  buildings  shall  have  certified  that  the  building  as  com¬ 
pleted  complies  with  the  building  and  electrical  codes  and  the 
laws  of  the  State,  but  without  disturbing  the  City’s  jurisdiction 
as  to  fire  prevention. 

4.  That  the  Board  of  Education  be  granted  complete  inde¬ 
pendence  from  all  municipal  control  in  the  administration  and 
expenditure  of  all  school  moneys,  subject  only  to  audit  by  the 
Comptroller  of  the  City  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  fraud  or 
error. 

5.  That  the  City  be  required  to  appropriate  in  its  annual 
budget  amount  which  together  with  the  school  moneys  which  are 
apportioned  to  the  City  by  the  State,  will  equal  the  budget  appro¬ 
priation  for  schools  in  the  City  for  the  year  1922  ($88,798,- 
546.81)  plus  an  annual  increase  of  two  million  dollars  as  repre¬ 
senting  the  normal  increase  of  cost ;  that  the  present  authorization 


15 


for  building  school  houses  be  not  revoked  and  that  at  least 
$6,000,000  be  authorized  annually  for  this  purpose. 

6.  That  the  State  provide  for  a  graduated  increased  appro¬ 
priation  for  schools  until  the  amount  apportioned  for  the  City 
of  Ye w  York  shall  be  increased  fifteen  million  dollars  over  the 
amount  apportioned  in  1922. 

7.  That  sections  of  the  greater  Yew  York  Charter  inconsistent 
with  the  provisions  of  the  education  law  be  repealed. 

And  the  Committee  further  recommends  that  as  soon  as  the 
Board  of  Education  is  reconstituted  under  the  foregoing  recom¬ 
mendations  that  the  powers  of  the  Board  be  increased  as  follows : 

8.  That  the  Board  of  Education  be  constituted  the  fiscal  and 
policy  determining  head  of  the  school  system  with  power  to  dele¬ 
gate  authority  to  the  Superintendent  of  Schools,  as  it  may  deem 
wise. 

9.  That  the  Board  of  Education  be  granted  power  to  establish, 
abolish  or  consolidate  such  boards,  bureaus  and  divisions  as  it 
may  deem  necessary  excepting  only  the  Board  of  Examiners. 

10.  That  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  and  all  other  officers 
and  employees  derive  their  power  and  authority  from  the  by-laws 
of  the  Board  of  Education,  subject  only  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Education  Law. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Schuyler  M.  Meyer,  Chairman. 

Theodore  Douglas  Robinson. 

Frederick  W.  Kavanaugh. 

Maxwell  S.  Harris, 

Simoh  L.  Adler, 

Sol  Ullman. 

John  R.  Yale. 

Walter  W.  West  all. 

Elon  R.  Brown,  Counsel. 

I  subscribe  to  the  Committee’s  recommendations  except  that  I 
do  not  believe  that  the  power  of  appointment  of  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  should  be  exercised  by  officials  elected  or 
appointed  outside  of  the  City  of  Yew  York.  Irrespective  of 
their  residence,  the  Regents  are  elected  by  the  Legislature.  I 
favor  confirmation  of  appointments  by  the  Mayor  to  the  Board 
of  Education  by  either  the  Board  of  Aldermen  or  by  the  Board 
of  Finance  suggested  in  the  Committee’s  first  report. 

Theodore  Stitt. 


in^l 


’ 


* 


. 


APPENDIX 


Education  under  the  Greater  New  A  ork  Charter- 

The  union  into  one  municipality  under  the  corporate  name  of 
the  City  of  New  York  of  “  the  various  communities  lying  in  and 
about  New  York  harbor,  including  the  City  and  County  of  Yew 
York,  the  City  of  Brooklyn  and  the  County  of  Kings,  the  County 
of  Richmond  and  part  of  the  County  of  Queens,' ”  effected  by 
Chapter  378  of  the  Laws  of  1897,  brought  together  into  one 
fabric  the  various  different  threads  of  educational  policy  which 
had  been  spun  by  the  separate  statutory  provisions  enacted  by 
the  State  Legislature  for  the  benefit  of  the  several  communities. 

These  had  been  and  were  of  the  most  diverse  character,  and 
the  recognition  in  the  new  charter  of  many  of  these  local  peculiari¬ 
ties,  in  response  doubtless  to  strong  local  pressure  to  perpetuate 
a  time-honored  custom  or  to  assure  a  continuance  in  office  to  some 
local  officer,  made  the  educational  sections  of  the  new  instrument 
complex  and  not  simple  affairs. 

At  the  time  of  consolidation,  for  example,  the  old  City  of  Yew 
York  had  a  Board  of  Education  of  21  members  appointed  by  the 
Mayor.  The  City  of  Brooklyn  had  a  Board  of  Education  of  45 
members  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  In  what  became  the  Boroughs 
of  Queens  and  Richmond,  there  were  many  independent  school 
organizations  based  on  town  or  school  district  lines. 

The  new  charter  sought  to  recognize  local  sentiment.  It  con¬ 
tinued  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  former  City  of  Yew  York 
as  the  School  Board  for  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  The 
Bronx.  It  continued  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  former  City 
of  Brooklyn  as  the  School  Board  for  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn, 
and  it  substituted  in  each  of  the  new  Boroughs  of  Queens  and 
Richmond,  a  Borough  School  Board  of  9  members  for  the  various 
pre-existing  local  school  organizations.  This  arrangement  gave 
each  borough  a  School  Board  with  very  considerable  powers  over 
the  schools  of  the  borough.  In  addition,  provision  was  made  for 
a  Board  of  Education  of  19  members,  consisting  of  the  4  Chair¬ 
men  of  the  4  Borough  School  Boards,  10  delegates  elected  from 


18 


its  membership  by  the  School  Board  of  Manhattan  and  The 
Bronx,  and  5  delegates  chosen  similarly  by  the  School  Board  of 
Brooklyn.  This  Board  of  Education  was  constituted  a  separate 
corporation  and  was  made  the  head  of  the  Department  of  Educa¬ 
tion,  set  up  as  one  of  the  administrative  departments  of  the  City. 

The  new  Board  did  not  enjoy  the  same  degree  of  independence 
as  its  predecessors.  On  the  administrative  side,  many  powers 
previously  possessed  by  the  Boards  of  Education  were  given  to 
the  Borough  School  Boards.  On  the  financial  side,  there  had 
been  a  gradual  growing  away  from  the  original  idea,  whereby 
local  school  authorities  were  independent  of  municipal  author¬ 
ities.  The  Act  of  1851,  for  example,  had  given  the  Board  of 
Education  corporate  powers  and  had  invested  it  with  full  control 
of  the  common  schools  with  power  to  take  and  hold  property, 
secure  proper  accountability  in  the  expenditure  of  school  moneys 
and  administer  the  funds  derived  from  the  city  and  State.  No 
municipal  control  was  incidental  thereto,  for  the  supervisors  of 
the  city  and  county  were  required  to  raise,  for  educational  pur¬ 
poses,  certain  sums  easily  ascertainable  under  the  law,  and  “  such 
additional  sum  or  sums  as  the  Board  of  Education 
shall  have  reported  to  be  necessary.”  This  gave  the  Board  of 
Education  a  position  of  peculiar  independence  in  relation  to  the 
fiscal  authorities  of  the  City  of  New  York,  but  during  the  next 
46  years,  this  independence  was  steadily  and  increasingly 
impaired. 

The  Board  of  Education  of  1898  had  very  little  financial 
power.  It  was  made  the  head  of  a  department  of  the  city  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  by  section  1059,  the  City  was  given  the  power  to 
determine  the  amount  of  money  to  be  allowed  from  the  tax  levy 
for  the  support  of  the  schools.  About  the  only  financial  functions 
remaining  to  the  Board  were  the  allotment  of  funds  to  the 
boroughs  on  the  basis  of  school  population  and  the  number  of 
teachers  employed,  and  the  control  of  the  special  school  fund. 

The  educational  chapter  of  the  charter  of  1897  represents  an 
attempt,  similar  to  attempts  made  before  and  since,  to  reconcile 
two  hopelessly  conflicting  theories.  The  schools  cannot  be  both 
independent  and  subject  to  municipal  control,  and  yet  the  Legis¬ 
lature  has  repeatedly  enacted  laws  by  which  it  has  endeavored  to 
make  this  paradox  work.  The  school  authorities  have  fought  to 
preserve  every  right  they  ever  enjoyed  and  the  city  authorities 
have  sought,  with  equal  vigor,  to  supervise  and  control  the  expendi- 


19 


ture  of  city  funds  appropriated  by  them  for  school  purposes.  A 
clear,  consistent  and  uncompromising  enactment  by  the  Legisla¬ 
ture,  settling  the  many  points  of  controversy,  would  go  far  to 
improve  school  conditions  in  Yew  York  City. 

The  charter  of  1897  was  soon  radically  revised.  Its  successor 
was  Chapter  466  of  the  Laws  of  1901,  and  the  educational  chap¬ 
ter  of  that  instrument  was  until  1917  the  basis  for  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  the  City’s  public  schools. 

The  Department  of  Education  was  continued  as  one  of  the 
administrative  departments  of  the  City,  and  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  was  placed  at  its  head.  The  former  Borough  School  Boards 
were  abolished  and  the  size  of  the  Board  of  Education  increased, 
to  provide  for  borough  representation.  The  new  Board  consisted 
of  46  members,  appointed  by  the  Mayor  for  five  year  terms,  as 
follows : 

22  residents  of  Manhattan. 

4  residents  of  The  Bronx. 

14  residents  of  Brooklyn. 

4  residents  of  Queens. 

2  residents  of  Bichmond. 

The  Board  was  given  corporate  privileges.  Among  other  sig¬ 
nificant  provisions  of  the  new  law  were  the  following : 

The  Board  of  Education  was  to  succeed  to  all  the  powers 
of  the  former  Board  of  Education  and  Borough  School 
Boards. 

The  Board  of  Education  was  to  administer  all  moneys 

%J 

available  for  educational  purposes. 

The  Board  of  Education  had  the  power  to  lease  property 
and  make  contracts. 

The  Board  of  Education  had  the  power  to  appoint  certain 
officers  and  clerks  and  to  fix  their  salaries,  and  to  appoint 
and  fix  the  salaries  above  certain  minimums  of  members  cf 
the  teaching  and  supervising  force. 

There  was  to  he  a  Board  of  Superintendents,  consisting 
of  the  City  Superintendent  and  8  Associate  Superintendents, 
the  latter  to  consist  of  the  4  Borough  Superintendents  and  of 
4  persons  selected  from  the  Associate  Borough  Superintend¬ 
ents,  each  to  hold  office  until  the  expiration  of  the  term  for 
which  he  had  originally  been  appointed. 


20 


There  were  to  be  26  District  Superintendents,  including 
all  the  Associate  Borough  Superintendents  not  appointed  to 
the  Board  of  Superintendents. 

There  were  to  be  46  local  school  hoards,  each  consisting 
of  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Education  assigned  by  the 
President  of  the  Board,  the  District  Superintendent  of  the 
district  and  5  persons  appointed  by  the  Borough  President. 

There  was  to  be  a  Board  of  Examiners,  to  examine 
candidates  for  teachers’  licenses. 

The  City  was  required  to  supply  the  Board  of  E  ducat  ion 
with  funds  for  school  purposes  annually,  amounting  to  not 
less  than  4  mills  on  the  dollar  of  assessed  valuation. 

The  Department  of  Finance  was  given  authority  to  audit 
the  Board’s  accounts. 

The  provisions  of  this  law  respecting  the  organization  of  the 
school  system  remained  substantially  the  same  during  the  entire 
life  of  the  educational  section  of  the  charter,  but  the  powers  of 
the  Board  of  Education  were  increasingly  impaired.  Special  sal¬ 
ary  laws  were  passed  by  the  Legislature,  which  in  effect  deprived 
the  Board  of  practically  all  control  over  teachers’  salaries.  By 
Chapter  43  of  the  Laws  of  1903,  the  amount  which  the  City 
must  annually  make  available  for  school  purposes  was  reduced 
from  4  mills  to  3  mills  contemporaneously  with  an  increase  in  the 
assessed  valuation  of  such  magnitude  that  the  yield  of  the  3-mill 
tax  was  greater  than  the  yield  of  the  4-mill  tax.  Both  amounts 
were,  however,  inadequate,  so  that  the  Board  of  Estimate  and 
Apportionment  substantially  controlled  the  Board  of  Education’s 
finances  by  conditioning  additional  appropriations  upon  the  obser¬ 
vance  of  the  Board  of  Estimate’s  rules  and  regulations  regarding 
the  segregation  of  appropriations  and  accounting  control.  The 
tendency  grew  to  regard  the  Department  of  Education  as  a  regu¬ 
lar  department  of  the  city  government  and  the  Legislature  made 
little,  if  any,  effort  to  realize  in  its  contemporary  legislation  the 
ideal  of  educational  independence  which  had  been  characteristic 
of  earlier  school  legislation  (notably  Chapter  386  of  the  Laws  of 
1851),  and  such  measure  of  independence  as  was  contemplated  in 
the  charter  of  1901  was,  as  indicated  above,  greatly  reduced  by 
subsequent  legislation  or  by  acquiescence. 

By  1917,  the  Department  of  Education  was  functioning  very 
much  as  a  regular  city  department.  The  3-mill  allowance  was  so 


inadequate  that  the  Board  of  Education  would  have  been  help¬ 
less  had  the  City  not  granted  additional  funds  to  run  the  schools. 
The  budget  for  1917,  for  example,  appropriated  $41,430,447.49 
for  the  general  and  special  school  funds,  while  the  amount 
yielded  by  the  3-mill  tax  and  included  in  the  budget  for  that  year, 
was  only  $25,753,057.53.  The  Department  of  Education  acted 
with  and  depended  upon  other  city  authorities,  such  as  the  Cor¬ 
poration  Counsel,  the  Department  of  Finance,  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment  and  the  Sinking  Fund  Commission,  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  its  contracts,  leases,  real  estate  transactions  and  pro¬ 
posals  for  the  construction  of  new  schools.  It  is  probably  safe  to 
say  that  what  independence  the  Board  of  Education  may  have 
had  under  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  law  was  not  exercised. 

The  situation  was  radically  changed  by  the  enactment  of  Chap¬ 
ter  786  of  the  Laws  of  1917.,  which  amended  the  State  Education 
Law,  by  providing  for  Boards  of  Education  in  the  several  cities 
of  the  State  and  which  repealed  nearly  all  the  sections  of  the  Hew 
York  City  Charter  with  respect  to  the  public  school  system.  The 
advocates  of  this  legislation  contended  that  public  education  in 
cities  was  as  much  a  matter  of  State  concern  as  in  villages  and 
towns,  and  that  the  many  varying  laws  controlling  school  systems 
should  be  brought  together  and  made  an  integral  part  of  the  State 
Education  Law. 

The  consolidation  and  unification  which  was  effected,  however, 
is  strikingly  similar  to  the  kind  of  consolidation  effected  by  the 
first  charter  of  the  Greater  City,  where  the  customs  and  machin¬ 
ery  of  the  two  cities  of  Hew  York  and  Brooklyn  were,  to  a  con¬ 
siderable  extent,  perpetuated  in  the  new  instrument.  The  State 
Law  of  1917  provides  for  about  as  many  different  kinds  of  Boards 
of  Education  as  there  were  before,  and  it  preserves  the  rights 
enjoyed  by  certain  communities  and  jealously  defended  by  them. 
It  has  the  virtue  of  including,  in  one  article,  most  of  the  provisions 
of  law  relative  to  city  schools,  but  it  does  not  provide  a  consistent 
ur  a  uniform  system  of  control. 


Education  under  the  Provisions  of  Chapter  786,  Laws  of 

1917,  as  Amended  through  1921. 

It  is  not  necessary  in  tlie  present  connection  to  comment  on 
the  patchwork  character  of  this  law.  The  powers,  duties  and 
composition  of  boards  of  education  in  the  larger  cities  of  the 
State  differ  amazingly,  and  the  organization  of  the  school  sys¬ 
tems  left  in  some  cities  to  local  control  is  in  New  York  pre¬ 
scribed  with  regard  to  certain  phases  such  as  the  Board  of 
Superintendents  and  the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education.  It 
is  enough  to  compare  the  conditions  under  the  charter  of  1901 
as  it  stood  in  1917,  with  the  present  legislative  provisions. 

The  following  analysis  of  the  more  important  provisions  of 


both  statutes  is  submitted  in 
comparison : 

Section  Charter  Provisions 

1055  School  property  vested  in  city 
under  control  of  Board  of 
Education. 


1059  Board  of  Estimate  and  Board 
of  Aldermen  given  power  to 
raise  by  tax  amounts  re¬ 
quired  for  school  purposes,  as 
called  for  by  annual  city 
budget. 

1000  General  and  special  school 
funds  established  and  Board 
of  Education  given  power  to 
administer  “  all  moneys  .  .  . 
available  for  educational  pur¬ 
poses  in  the  citv  of  New 
York.” 


1061  Board  of  Education  created  to 

consist  of  46  unpaid  mem¬ 
bers  appointed  by  the  mayor 
for  5-year  terms:  22  from 
Manhattan,  4  from  the 
Bronx,  14  from  Brooklyn,  4 
from  Queens,  2  from  Rich¬ 
mond. 

1062  Board  of  Education  given  cor¬ 

porate  powers. 

1064  Board  of  Education  to  be  rep¬ 
resentative  of  entire  school 
system.  By  Sept.  15th  to 
submit  annually  to  Board  of 
Estimate  a  detailed  estimate 


parallel  columns  to  facilitate 


Section  State  Law  Provisions 

868-3  Charter  sec.  1055  not  re¬ 
pealed.  Board  of  Education 
given  care,  custody  and  con¬ 
trol  of  all  city  school  property. 

Charter  sec.  1059  repealed. 


877-7  Charter  sec.  1060  repealed. 
General  and  special  school 
funds  defined  and  established, 
and  Board  of  Education  given 
power  to  administer  “  all 
moneys  .  .  .  available  for  edu¬ 
cational  purposes  in  the  city,” 
subject  to  audit  by  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Finance. 

865-866  Charter  sec.  1061  repealed. 
Board  of  Education  created  to 
consist  of  seven  members:  two 
from  each  of  the  two  boroughs 
with  the  largest  population, 
and  one  from  each  of  the  other 
three  appointed  by  the  mayor 
for  seven-year  terms. 

300  Boards  of  education  in  cities 
made  corporations. 

877-1  Charter  sec.  1064  repealed. 
Board  of  Education  by  Septem¬ 
ber  1st  to  submit  annual  esti¬ 
mate  for  ensuing  fiscal  year  to 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Appor- 


Section  Charter  Provisions 

of  moneys  required  for  next 
calendar  year.  Board  of  Esti¬ 
mate  required  to  appropriate 
for  general  school  fund  not 
less  than  the  yield  of  3  mills. 
Board  of  Education  to  ad¬ 
minister  all  moneys  subject 
to  audit  by  Department  of 
Finance. 


1066  Board  of  Education  empowered 

to  dispose  of  personal  prop¬ 
erty. 

1067  Board  of  Education  empowered 

to  appoint  secretary,  super¬ 
intendent  of  school  buildings, 
superintendent  of  school  sup¬ 
plies,  city  superintendent  of 
schools,  supervisor  of  lec¬ 
tures,  director  and  assist¬ 
ant  director  of  reference 
and  research,  and  one  or 
more  auditors ;  also  a  chief 
clerk  and  “  such  other  offi¬ 
cers,  clerks  or  subordinates 
as  it  may  deem  necessary  .  .  . 
and  as  are  provided  for  by 
the  proper  appropriations.” 
These  appointees  removable 
for  cause  by  tliree-fourths 
vote. 


1068  Board  of  Education  empowered 
to  enact  by-laws,  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  transac¬ 
tion  of  its  business  and  “  de¬ 
fining  the  duties  of  the  city 
superintendent  of  schools,  the 
director  and  assistant  director 
of  the  Division  of  Reference 
and  Research,  the  superin¬ 
tendent  of  school  buildings. 


Section  State  Law  Provisions 

877-7  tionment,  which  is  required  to 
appropriate  the  amount  of  such 
estimate  up  to  the  yield  of  4.9 
mills.  Board  of  Estimate  au¬ 
thorized  to  make  additional  ap¬ 
propriations.  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  empowered  to  adminis¬ 
ter  all  moneys  available  for 
educational  purposes  subject 
to  audit  by  Department  of 
877-8  Finance.  Board  of  Education 
may  submit  special  estimates 
to  meet  emergencies. 

Charter  sec.  1066  not  repealed. 


868  Charter  sec.  1067  repealed.  Pow¬ 
ers  and  duties  of  Board  of 
Education  as  follows:  To  per¬ 
form  any  duty  imposed  by 
State  law  or  regulation  of  the 
University  of  the  State  of  New 
York  or  Commissioner  of  Edu¬ 
cation;  to  create,  abolish, 
maintain  and  consolidate  such 
positions,  divisions,  boards,  or 
bureaus  as  it  deems  necessary; 
to  appoint  a  superintendent  of 
schools,  such  associate  district 
or  other  superintendents,  etc., 
as  it  deems  necessary,  and  to 
determine  their  duties,  except 
as  otherwise  prescribed  by  the 
Education  Law;  to  appoint 

872  district  superintendents,  di¬ 
rectors,  supervisors,  principals, 
teachers  and  all  other  members 
of  the  teaching  and  supervis¬ 
ing  staff  upon  recommen¬ 
dation  of  the  Board  of  Super¬ 
intendents  (except  associate 
superintendents  and  exam¬ 
iners)  and  to  appoint  asso¬ 
ciate  superintendents  and  ex¬ 
aminers  and  all  other  em¬ 
ployees  (except  members  of  the 
teaching  and  supervising  staff, 
the  appointment  of  whom,  must 
be  on  recommendation  of 
Board  of  Superintendents). 

868-9  Charter  sec.  1068  repealed. 
Board  of  Education  empowered 
to  prescribe  such  regulations 
and  by-laws  as  may  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  make  effectual  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  this  chapter,  etc. 


Section  Charter  Provisions 

the  superintendent  of  school 
supplies,  of  its  auditor  or  au¬ 
ditors,  its  clerks  and  subordi¬ 
nates,”  etc. 

1069  Additional  powers  of  Board  of 

Education : 

1.  To  establish  and  conduct 

elementary  schools,  kinder¬ 
gartens,  manual  training 
schools,  trade  schools, 
truant  schools,  evening 
schools  and  vacation 
schools. 

2.  To  maintain  free  lectures 
and  courses  of  instruction 
for  the  people  of  the  city 
of  New  York. 

3.  To  provide  special  classes 
for  instruction  in  English 
to  foreigners. 

4.  To  provide  “  one  or  more 
high  schools  and  training 
schools.” 

5.  To  establish  and  conduct 
playgrounds  in  connection 
with  the  public  schools. 

6.  To  establish  new  schools 
and  discontinue  or  consoli¬ 
date  any  schools. 

7.  To  make  contracts  with  ap¬ 
proval  of  board  of  esti¬ 
mate  for  transportation  of 
pupils. 

8.  To  establish  a  bureau 
of  compulsory  education, 
school  census  and  child 
welfare.  “  On  the  nomina¬ 
tion  of  the  board  of  super¬ 
intendents  the  board  of 
education  shall  have  power 
to  appoint  a  director  and 
an  assistant  director  ”  and 
other  employees,  and  fix 
their  salaries  within  the 
proper  appropriation. 

1070  Secretary  to  have  charge  of 

rooms,  books,  papers,  etc.,  of 
the  board  and  to  perform 
“  such  other  duties  as  may 
be  required  by  its  members 
or  committees.” 

1071  Board  of  Education  empowered 

to  establish  branch  offices  of 
the  bureaus  of  school  build¬ 
ings  and  school  supplies  in 
the  several  boroughs,  super¬ 
intendent  of  school  buildings 
to  be  executive  officer  of  the 
board  “  in  respect  to  all  mat¬ 
ters  relating  to  the  bureau  of 
buildings.” 


Section  State  Law  Provisions 


868-5  Charter  sec.  1069  repealed  ex¬ 
cept  subdivision  8.  Board  of 
Education  has  power  to  estab¬ 
lish  and  maintain  such  free  ele¬ 
mentary  schools,  high  schools, 
training  schools,  vocational 
and  industrial  schools,  kinder¬ 
gartens,  technical  schools,  night 
schools,  part-time  or  continua¬ 
tion  schools,  vacation  schools, 
schools  for  adults,  open  air 
schools,  schools  for  the  men¬ 
tally  and  physically  defective 
children,  or  such  other  schools 
or  classes  as  it  may  deem 
868-6  necessary,  and  to  establish  and 
maintain  libraries,  public  lec¬ 
ture  courses,  playgrounds,  rec¬ 
reation  centers,  social  centers 
and  reading  rooms. 


871 -a  Bureau  of  compulsory  educa¬ 
tion,  school  census  and  child 
welfare  made  mandatory,  em¬ 
ployees  continued  in  office  dur¬ 
ing  good  behavior  and  remov¬ 
able  only  for  cause. 


Charter  sec.  1070  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1071  repealed. 


25 


Section  Charter  Provisions 

1073  All  plans  for  new  school  build¬ 

ings,  additions  and  structural 
alterations  must  be  approved 
by  superintendent  of  school 
buildings,  who  shall  submit 
such  plans  to  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation,  whose  action  shall  be 
final. 

1074  Janitors  shall  be  appointed  by 

the  Board  of  Education. 

1075  Board  of  Education  shall  pro¬ 

vide  for  purchase  of  all  books, 
supplies,  etc.,  and  shall  have 
power  to  enact  by-laws  and 
resolutions  for  government  of 
superintendent  of  supplies, 
which  by-laws,  etc.,  shall  pro¬ 
vide  that  all  supplies  as  far 
as  possible  shall  be  obtained 
by  contract  after  public  let¬ 
ting  in  accordance  with  sec¬ 
tion  419. 

1076  Bureau  under  superintendent  of 

supplies  to  be  subject  to  rules 
and  regulations  of  Board  of 
Education.  Superintendent  of 
supplies  may  appoint  such 
deputies  and  other  subordi¬ 
nates  as  the  by-laws  of  the 
Board  of  Education  may  au¬ 
thorize.  He  shall  be  the  ex¬ 
ecutive  officer  of  the  board  in 
respect  of  supplies,  printing, 
transportation  of  pupils  and 
such  other  matters  as  may  be 
assigned  him  by  the  board. 

1077  City  superintendent  shall  have 

right  of  visitation  and  in¬ 
quiry  in  all  schools  of  the  city 
and  shall  report  to  the  board 
thereon.  He  shall  have  a  seat 
and  a  right  to  speak  in  the 
board  meetings,  but  no  vote. 


1078  City  superintendent  shall  visit 
schools  and,  subject  to  by¬ 
laws,  prescribe  forms  and 
regulations  for  conducting 
school  business.  Under  direc¬ 
tion  of  Board  of  Education 
he  shall  enforce  Compulsory 
Education  Law.  He  may  ap¬ 
point  clerks  as  authorized  by 
the  Board  of  Education,  and 
assign,  suspend  or  discharge 
them  subject  to  appeal  to  the 
Board  of  Education.  He  shall 


Section  State  Law  Provisions 
Charter  sec.  1073  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1074  repealed. 

868-4  Charter  sec.  1075  repealed. 
Board  of  Education  to  secure 
necessary  books,  supplies,  etc. 


Charter  sec.  1076  repealed. 


870-1  Charter  secs.  1077  and  1078 
repealed.  Superintendent  of 
schools  shall  have  power,  sub¬ 
ject  to  by-laws,  to  enforce  all 
rules,  etc.,  relating  to  the  man¬ 
agement  of  the  schools,  etc. ;  to 
be  the  chief  executive  officer 
of  the  Board  of  Education  and 
the  educational  system;  to 
have  a  seat  and  voice  but  not 
a  vote  at  board  meetings;  to 

4  have  supervision  and  direction 
of  all  persons  employed  by  the 
Board  of  Education;  to  trans¬ 
fer  teachers  on  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  board  of  superintend¬ 
ents;  to  suspend  any  employee 
until  next  meeting  of  Board 

5  of  Education;  to  have  super¬ 
vision  and  direction  over  the 
enforcement  of  courses  of  study 
and  all  the  other  educational 
activities  under  control  of  the 
Board  of  Education;  to  issue 


20 


Section  Charter  Provisions 

assign  associate  and  district 
superintendents  subject  to  b)r- 

laws.  Twenty-three  district 
superintendents  to  be  as¬ 
signed,  each  one  to  two  local 
school  board  districts. 

1079  Board  of  superintendents  estab¬ 
lished,  consisting  of  city  su¬ 
perintendent  and  eight  asso¬ 
ciate  superintendents  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  for  six  years.  Board 
of  Education  empowered  to 
pass  by-laws  regulating  du¬ 
ties  of  city  superintendent 
and  board  of  superintendents. 
There  shall  be  twenty-six  dis¬ 
trict  superintendents  to  be 
appointed  by  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  for  six  years  on  nomi¬ 
nation  of  board  of  superin¬ 
tendents.  Board  of  Education 
empowered  to  appoint  direct¬ 
ors  of  special  branches  for 
six  years  on  nomination  by 
board  of  superintendents. 

1032  Board  of  superintendents,  sub¬ 
ject  to  approval  of  Board  of 
Education,  shall  establish 
rules  governing  promotion, 
transfer,  etc.,  of  pupils. 

1083  Board  of  Education  shall,  upon 
recommendation  of  board  of 
superintendents,  approve  text 
books,  etc. 


1084  Board  of  Education  shall  have 
power  to  change  grades  and 
adopt  and  modify  courses  of 
study,  but  such  changes  must 
first  be  presented  to  board  of 
superintendents  and,  in  case 
of  adverse  report  by  latter, 
change  shall  not  be  effective 
unless  passed  by  two-thirds 
vote. 

1087  Creation  of  forty-six  local  school 
board  districts  and  local 
school  boards  of  five  persons 
appointed  by  borough  presi¬ 
dent,  district  superintendent 
and  Beard  of  Education  mem¬ 
ber. 


Section  State  Laic  Provisions 

licenses  to  teachers  on  recom¬ 
mendation  of  board  of  exam- 
870-6  iners;  to  have  general  super  - 
871  vision  of  bureau  of  compulsory 
education,  school  census  and 
child  welfare. 

869  Charter  sec.  1079  repealed.  Board 
of  superintendents  continued, 
consisting  of  superintendent  of 
schools  and  eight  associate  su¬ 
perintendents,  superintendent 
to  be  chairman.  It  has  power 
870-2  to  prepare  the  content  of  each 
course  of  study  authorized  by 
Board  of  Education,  subject  to 
approval  by  Board  of  Educa- 
870-4  tion;  to  recommend  text  books; 
to  recommend  to  superintend¬ 
ent  the  transfer  of  teachers. 


870-5  Charter  sec.  1082  repealed. 
Board  of  superintendents  to 
have  power  to  make  rules  and 
regulations  for  promotion  and 
graduation  of  pupils. 

868-8  Charter  sec.  1083  repealed. 
Board  of  Education  has  power 
to  authorize  and  determine 
text  books  from  lists  recom¬ 
mended  by  board  of  superin¬ 
tendents. 

868-7  Charter  sec.  1084  repealed. 
Board  of  Education  has  power 
to  authorize  the  general 
courses  of  study  and  to  ap¬ 
prove  the  content  of  such 
courses  before  they  become 
operative. 


873  Charter  sec.  1087  repealed.  Local 
school  board  districts  contin¬ 
ued,  but  Board  of  Education 
given  power  to  modify  bound¬ 
aries,  consolidate  two  or  more 
and  establish  new  ones.  Local 
school  boards  to  consist  of  five 
persons  appointed  by  the  bor¬ 
ough  president,  a  member  of 
the  Board  of  Education  desig¬ 
nated  by  the  board,  and  a  dis¬ 
trict  superintendent  assigned 
by  the  city  superintendent. 


Section  Charter  Provisions 

1088  Duties  of  local  school  boards: 

1.  To  visit  and  inspect  schools 
at  least  once  each  quarter. 

2.  To  report  on  needs  for  new 
accommodations,  recom¬ 
mend  sites,  repairs,  etc. 

3.  To  report  dereliction  of 
dutv. 

4.  To  excuse  teachers’  ab¬ 
sences,  subject  to  approval 
of  board  of  superintend¬ 
ents,  for  absence  with  pay, 
and  in  accordance  with  by¬ 
laws. 

5.  To  try  and  determine  all 
matters  regarding  discip¬ 
line  and  corporal  punish¬ 
ment. 

6.  To  try  charges  against  a 
teacher. 

7.  To  transfer  teachers  within 
district,  after  hearing  and 
subject  to  approval  of 
board  of  superintendents. 

1089  Board  of  examiners  created  to 

license  teachers,  consisting 
of  city  superintendent  and 
four  persons  appointed  by 
Board  of  Education  upon 
nomination  by  city  super¬ 
intendent. 

1090  Principals,  branch  principals, 

heads  of  departments,  teach¬ 
ers,  assistants  and  all  mem¬ 
bers  of  teaching  staff  shall  be 
appointed  by  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  on  nomination  of  board 
of  superintendents,  from  es¬ 
tablished  eligible  lists. 

1091  Board  of  Education  shall  have 

power  to  fix  salaries  of  mem¬ 
bers  of  supervising  and  teach¬ 
ing  staff  subject  to  certain 
minimums  prescribed  by  the 
statute. 

1093  Board  of  Education  empowered 
to  suspend  principals,  teach¬ 
ers,  etc.,  with  or  witnout  pay, 
pending  trial  of  charges  pre¬ 
ferred  against  them. 

1096  Mayor  can  remove  any  member 
of  Board  of  Education  or 
local  school  board  for  causes 
specified. 

1098  Board  of  Education  may  remove 
any  school  officer  interested 
in  furnishing  supplies,  etc. 


Section  State  Law  Provisions 

873-4  Charter  sec.  1088  repealed. 

Powers  and  duties  of  local 
school  boards : 

1.  To  visit  schools  at  least 
once  in  each  quarter. 

2.  To  make  recommendations 
to  Board  of  Education. 

3.  Subject  to  by-laws  of 
Board  of  Education,  to 
transfer  teachers,  excuse 
absences  of  teachers,  and 
hear  charges  against  prin¬ 
cipals  or  teachers. 


871  Charter1  sec.  1089  repealed.  Board 
of  examiners  to  consist  of 
seven  members  to  hold  exami¬ 
nations  and  promulgate  eli¬ 
gible  lists,  and  perform  the  du¬ 
ties  required  by  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation. 

Charter  sec.  1090  repealed. 

See  sec.  872  summarized  above. 


882  Board  of  Education  shall  adopt 
by-laws  fixing  salaries  of  mem¬ 
bers  of  teaching  and  supervis¬ 
ing  staff,  but  they  shall  not  be 
less  than  the  rates  prescribed 
by  the  State. 

Charter  sec.  1093  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1096  not  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1098  not  repealed. 


28 


Section  Charter  Provisions 

1099  Contributions  by  members  of 

teaching  or  supervising  force 
to  funds  to  affect  legislation 
increasing  their  emoluments, 
prohibited. 

1100  Board  of  Education  may  inves¬ 

tigate  any  subject  over  which 
it  has  legal  control  or  of 
which  it  has  cognizance,  in¬ 
cluding  conduct  of  employees. 

1101  Continuance  in  office  of  all  em 

ployees  under  public  school 
system. 

1102  State  school  moneys  payable  to 

city  and  credited  to  general 

o 

fund  for  reduction  of  taxa¬ 
tion. 


Section  State  Law  Provisions 
Charter  see.  1099  not  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1100  not  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1101  not  repealed. 


Charter  sec.  1102  not  specifically 
repealed. 

880  State  school  moneys  to  be  cred¬ 
ited  to  the  Board  of  Education 
as  well  as  all  funds  raised  by 
the  city  for  any  purpose  au¬ 
thorized  by  the  educational 
chapter. 

877-10  Board  of  Education  shall  not 
incur  a  liability  chargeable 
against  its  funds  or  the  city 
in  excess  of  the  amount  avail¬ 
able  therefor,  or  otherwise  au¬ 
thorized  by  law. 

879- 4  Board  of  Estimate  authorized 

to  raise  in  its  discretion  money 
for  new  schools,  sites,  etc. 

880- 3  Board  of  Education  to  make 

such  classification  of  accounts 
as  the  comptroller  of  the  city 
shall  require. 


From  the  above  comparative  summary  the  following  outstanding 
features  of  the  new  law  are  apparent,  viz. : 

1.  Reduction  in  size  in  Board  of  Education  from  forty-six  to 

seven  members. 

2.  Possibility  of  conflict  between  the  Board  of  Education  and 

the  Supei  intendent  of  Schools  relative  to  their  respec¬ 
tive  powers. 

3.  Possibility  of  conflict  between  the  Board  of  Education  and 

t/ 

the  municipal  authorities  relative  to  their  respective 
powers. 

4.  Failure  to  concentrate  in  clear  and  unmistakable  language 

full  responsibility  for  the  proper  administration  of  the 
public  school  system  either  on  the  municipal  authorities, 
the  Board  of  Education  or  the  State  cf  hfew  York. 


29 


5.  Limitation  of  the  powers  of  the  Board  of  Education. 

6.  Great  increase  in  the  powers  of  the  Superintendent  of 

Schools. 

7.  Perpetuation  of  the  Board  of  Superintendents. 

8.  Perpetuation  of  the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education, 

School  Census  and  Child  Welfare. 

9.  Conflict  between  section  1102  of  the  charter,  which  was  not 

specifically  repealed,  and  the  State  Education  Law  rela¬ 
tive  to  the  disposition  to  be  made  of  the  city’s  share  of 
the  State  school  moneys ;  the  former  providing  that  such 
money  he  credited  to  the  city’s  general  fund  for  the 
reduction  of  taxation,  and  the  latter  that  it  be  credited 
to  the  Board  of  Education. 

10.  Increase  from  three  mills  to  four  and  nine-tenths  mills  in 

the  amount  which  the  City  is  required  annually  to 
appropriate  for  the  use  of  the  Board  of  Education. 

11.  The  inclusion  within  the  State’s  educational  system  of  city 

beards  of  education,  including  the  Board  of  Education 
of  the  City  of  Hew  York  and  the  subordination  of  the 
municipal  authorities  to  the  State  in  matters  of  school 
administration. 

The  new  law  effecting  these  changes  in  the  status  of  the  local 
educational  system  has  been  in  force  for  almost  four  years  and 
its  adequacy  and  effectiveness  should  be  easily  determinable  from 
the  history  of  the  public  schools  during  that  period.  A  consider¬ 
able  amount  of  data  bearing  on  this  subject  has  been  collected  and 
the  President  of  the  Board  of  Education,  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools  and  the  Superintendent  of  School  Buildings  have  been 
examined  at  public  hearings.  The  following  discussion  of  the 
degree  of  success  Avith  which  the  State  Education  Law  has  been 
administered  is  based  upon  a  combination  of  sworn  testimony  and 
independent  examination  of  the  school  records. 

1.  Reduction  in  size  of  the  Board  of  Education  from  kG  to  7 
members. 

One  of  the  most  popular  features  of  the  new  law  at  the  time 
it  was  before  the  Legislature  for  enactment  was  that  it  reduced 
the  size  of  the  Board  of  Education  in  Hew  York  City  from  the 
unwieldy  number  of  46  to  the  small  compact  number  of  7.  But 
the  experiences  of  the  past  four  years  have  shown  that  good  school 


30 


management  depends  on  more  than  the  size  of  the  board.  A 
board  of  7  must  be  composed  of  exceptionally  conscientious  and 
capable  persons  if  it  is  to  discharge  satisfactorily  its  many 
responsibilities,  and  it  must  be  composed  of  recognized  authori¬ 
ties  in  the  field  of  education  and  business  if  it  is  to  command 
public  respect.  The  appointments  made  to  the  new  board  of  7 
do  not  seem  to  have  been  made  with  due  regard  to  these  considera¬ 
tions.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  names  of  the  present  members  are 
known  to  more  than  a  small  proportion  of  the  city’s  population, 
and  if  the  names  are  known,  it  is  exceedingly  doubtful  if  the 
qualifications  of  these  members  are  known.  The  President  of 
the  Board  of  Education  admitted  on  the  witness  stand  that  prior 
to  his  appointment  to  the  Board  he  had  not  been  specially  inter¬ 
ested  in  educational  matters  or  administration  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  1205). 
In  response  to  further  inquiries  he  stated  that  he  was  in  the  real 
estate  business,  although  at  the  present  time  he  was  not  actually 
engaged  in  any  business.  As  to  his  personal  educational  qualifica¬ 
tions,  he  stated  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  1205)  that  he  was  a  common  school 
and  high  school  graduate,  but  had  not  attended  college. 

In  January,  1922,  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Education 
resigned  his  office  and  accepted  a  political  appointment  to  a 
$7,000  job  as  Commissioner  of  Taxes  and  Assessments.  The 
person  appointed  by  the  Mayor  to  fill  the  vacancy  occasioned  by 
the  President’s  resignation  has,  according  to  the  City's  civil  list, 
been  a  paid  employee  of  the  City  of  Hew  York,  from  1914  to 
the  end  of  1921,  his  last  position  being  that  of  Commissioner 
of  Public  Works,  at  a  salary  of  $5,500,  under  a  Borough  President 
whose  term  of  office  expired  December  31,  1921. 

One  of  the  most  important  committees  of  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion  is  the  committee  on  buildings  and  sites.  The  chairman  of 
that  committee  is  the  personal  physician  of  the  Mayor’s  family. 
Without  wishing  to  reflect  in  any  way  upon  the  probity  of  the 
individuals  in  question,  or  upon  other  members  of  the  present 
Board  of  Education,  the  committee  believes  that  the  persons 
appointed  during  the  last  four  years  do  not  all  possess  the  highest 
qualifications  for  membership  on  this  important  body. 

The  newest  appointee  is  almost  totally  unknown  outside  of 
his  own  borough.  Even  in  his  own  borough  he  is  not  conspicuous 
for  his  knowledge  of  and  interest  in  educational  problems. 

The  law  establishes  qualifications  for  the  office  of  Super  in- 
tcndent  of  Schools  and  other  members  of  the  professional  staff. 


31 


but  members  of  the  Board  of  Education  who  are  to  determine  the 
educational  policies  to  be  carried  out  by  these  professional  school¬ 
men  may  be  selected  with  regard  only  to  the  borough  of  their 
residence.  With  no  other  check  upon  the  appointing  power,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  political  considerations  should  carry  great 
weight.  Politics  should  be  kept  out  of  the  public  schools  and 
some  statutory  safeguard  should  be  erected  to  insure  the  selec¬ 
tion  of  persons  qualified  for  other  than  political  reasons  for 
membership  in  the  Board  of  Education.  This  can  be  done  by 
requiring  appointments  to  the  Board  of  Education  to  be  made 
by  some  non-political  agency;  that  the  desirability  for  some  such 
provision  is  more  than  theoretical  is  adequately  established  by  the 
evidence  below. 

T’he  best  test  of  the  qualifications  and  competency  of  the  present 
Board  of  Education  is  afforded  by  its  record  of  the  past  four  years, 
a  brief  account  of  which  will  now  be  submitted. 

a.  Inadequate  School  Accommodations. 

In  December,  1917,  the  month  before  the  present  Board  of 
Education  took  office,  there  were  746,114  children  registered  in 
the  day  elementary  schools,  of  whom  34,153  were  on  part  time  and 
76,214  on  the  so-called  duplicate  form  of  organization.  In 
October,  1921,  the  last  month  for  which  figures  are  now  available 
(December,  1921)  there  were  817,210  children  on  register  in  the 
day  elementary  schools,  of  whom  81,242  were  on  part  time  and 
194,234  on  double  session. 

In  the  day  high  schools  there  were  58,063  registered  in  Decem¬ 
ber,  1917,  none  of  whom  were  on  double  session  and  only  1,796 
were  on  part  time  In  October,  1921,  the  register  had  increased  to 
82,265  and  there  were  1,516  children  on  double  session  and 
33,892  on  part  time. 

These  figures  demonstrate  conclusively  that  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  has  not  provided  sufficient  additional  school  accommoda¬ 
tions  to  care  for  the  growth  of  school  population.  It  is  a  serious 
reflection  upon  Hew  York  City  that  115,134  children  should  be 
deprived  of  a  full  day’s  schooling  and  that  195,750  children 
should  be  subjected  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  double  session 
expedient  to  which  the  city  has  resorted.  Such  a  condition  is 
intolerable  and  the  fault  lies  with  the  Board  of  Education,  the 
city  authorities,  or  the  provisions  of  law  under  which  they  operate. 
If  the  trouble  is  with  the  law,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 


32 


cation  to  seek  suck  amendments  as  will  obviate  the  difficulty. 
Unless  the  Board  has  actively  concerned  itself  with  desirable 
modifications  of  tbe  statute,  however,  it  cannot  be  free  from 
blame  fcr  tbe  failure  to  provide  tbe  necessary  accommodations. 

Tbe  conspicuous  failure  to  provide  sufficient  accommodations  for 
elementary  school  pupils  is  demonstrated  by  the  foregoing  figures. 
Confirmation  is  afforded  by  tbe  compilation  of  statistics  shewing 
tbe  capacity  of  new  elementary  school  buildings  and  additions 
opened  during  tbe  past  four  years.  Tbe  records  show  the  follow¬ 
ing: 

No.  of  New  Buildings  or  No.  of  Sittings 


Year  Additions  Opened  Therein 

1918  .  2  1,294 

1919  .  4  1,380 

1920  .  None  None 


1921  to  Dec.  6.  1C*  19,203 

Total....  22  21,877 


*  Of  the  1G  opened  in  1921,  all  but  two  were  opened  after  September  1st. 

During  tbe  preceding  four  years,  44  new  elementary  buildings 
or  additions  were  opened,  with  52,847  sittings,  so  that  tbe  record 
of  tbe  present  Board  of  Education  is  unsatisfactory,  both  as  com¬ 
pared  with  requirements  and  as  compared  with  the  accomplish¬ 
ments  of  its  predecessor. 

Various  reasons  have  been  given  bv  city  and  school  officials  to 
explain  tbe  delay  in  school  construction,  tbe  war  being  tbe  one 
most  frequently  mentioned.  Tbe  record,  however,  does  not  indi¬ 
cate  that  tbe  war  played  more  than  an  incidental  part  in  this 
matter.  At  tbe  time  tbe  small  Board  of  Education  took  office,  it 
found  a  building  program  prepared  by  its  predecessor,  calling 
for  tbe  erection  of  certain  specified  buildings,  and  plans  were 
practically  completed  for  several  typical  schools.  In  addition 
there  were  authorizations  aggregating  about  $10,000,000  from 
which  tbe  cost  of  construction  could  be  defrayed.  Tbe  new 
Board,  however,  did  not  make  use  of  this  program  or  of  tbe 
funds.  On  May  10,  1918,  tbe  President  of  the  Board  reported  that 
“  this  Board  undertook  to  set  aside  all  previous  plans  and  begin 
de  novo,”  and  on  December  30,  1918,  tbe  Board  of  Estimate 
rescinded  the  authorizations  made  by  tbe  previous  administration 
for  new  school  construction.  The  first  bids  called  for  bv  tbe  new 
Board  were  for  P.  S.  No.  29,  Brooklyn.  They  wrere  opened  July 
10,  1918.  The  contract  was  let  but  was  later  rescinded  at  tbe 


request  of  the  War  Industries  Board.  It  would  appear,  there¬ 
fore,  that  the  only  delay  in  school  construction  actually  attribut¬ 
able  to  the  war  and  the  rules  of  the  War  Industries  Board  was  the 
four  month  period  from  July  when  the  first  contract  was  awarded, 
and  November,  when  the  armistice  was  signed.  On  November 
13,  1918,  the  Superintendent  of  School  Buildings  reported  that 
plans  and  specifications  for  fourteen  new  buildings  and  additions 
were  ready  for  the  estimating  table,  but  the  first  construction 
contract  was  not  let  until  March  24,  1919.  During  1919  fourteen 
construction  contracts  were  let  and  all  fourteen  covered  buildings 
on  the  program  of  the  previous  administration  for  which  the 
funds  had  been  authorized  by  the  previous  administration.  It 
took  the  new  Board  of  Education  more  than  fourteen  months  to  go 
ahead  with  the  identical  schools  selected  by  its  predecessor. 

It  is  difficult  to  find  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  delays  in 
school  construction.  The  passive  role  played  by  the  Board  of 
Education  was  one  factor.  It  received  pressure  and  criticism 
from  the  Mayor  and  from  the  city  authorities  and  it  encountered 
obstacles  in  its  own  organization  and  procedure,  but  instead  of 
responding  actively  to  the  pressure  or  striving  vigorously  to  over¬ 
come  the  obstacles  it  apparently  more  or  less  acquiesced  in  condi¬ 
tions  as  it  found  them.  The  following  quotations  from  letters  of 
the  Mayor  and  from  the  testimony  of  the  President  of  the  Board 
of  Education  are  illustrative  of  this  point. 

On  August  8,  1918,  the  Mayor  wrote  to  a  member  of  the  Board 
of  Education  in  part  as  follows: 

“  Six  months  of  our  administration  have  passed  by  and 
very  little  has  been  done  toward  the  construction  of  schools. 
If  Mr.  Snyder  cannot  build  more  than  one  or  two  schools  at 
a  time,  would  it  not  be  a  good  idea  to  replace  him  with  a  man 
who  could  have  five  or  six  schools  in  the  course  of  construc¬ 
tion  at  the  same  time  ? 

“If  the  Board  of  Education  will  first  figure  out  hov 
many  schools  can  be  constructed  with  the  money  now  avail¬ 
able  and  after  conferring  with  the  Presidents  of  the  various 
boroughs  will  then  recommend  where  the  schools  are  imme¬ 
diately  required,  I  will  then  submit  your  plan  to  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  committee  on  finance  and  budget,  sc  that  action 
can  be  at  once  taken  and  at  least  seven  or  eight  new  schools 
be  started  without  any  further  delay.  .  .  .  You  have  a 
standard  type  of  school.  You  have  some  school  sites  where 


34 


schools  are  necessary.  If  you  have  not  enough,  let  us  pro¬ 
ceed  to  secure  a  sufficient  number  of  sites  in  accordance  with 
the  money  we  have  on  hand  and  start  the  schools  at  once.” 

This  letter  was  read  into  the  testimony  and  the  President  of 
the  Board  was  then  questioned  as  follows  (Yol.  Ill,  p.  1264)  : 

“  Q.  Yow,  at  the  time  you  received  that  letter,  the 
$10,000,000  authorization  was  in  force?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

“  Q.  Remained  in  force  until  the  30th  of  the  following 
December  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

“  Q.  But  that  letter  did  not  result  in  any  action  along  the 
line  of  new  school  buildings  under  that  authorization?  A. 
Well,  no ;  not  under  that  particular  authorization,  no. 

“  Q.  Well,  or  any  other  authorization  until  after  Decem¬ 
ber  30th  ?  A.  I  can’t  recall  whether  it  was  prior  to  that  date 
that  the  Board  submitted  its  program  for  27  new  elementary 
schools. 

“  Q.  You  said  in  May  that  you  had  made  a  complete  new 
program  and  wiped  out  the  old  program  ?  A.  Yes.  But  I 
think  perhaps  that  program  had  been  sent  in  —  I  am  not 
certain  —  I  think  it  had  been  sent  in  before  the  receipt  of 
this  letter.” 

On  October  17.  1918,  the  Mayor  wrote  again,  in  part,  as  follows 
(Yol.  Ill,  p.  1266): 

“  The  question  of  a  sufficient  number  of  new  school  build¬ 
ings  in  this  city  to  properly  house  the  school  children  is  giv¬ 
ing  me  great  concern.  .  .  .  We  have  some  ten  millions 
of  dollars  available  for  building  schools.  I  would  like  to 
have  that  money  employed  for  that  purpose  and  I  would  like 
to  begin  making  preparations  for  the  construction  of  these 
schools  at  once.  Mr.  Bernard  Baruch,  representing  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  has  declared  that  we  cannot 
at  this  time  have  the  material  necessary  for  the  construction 
of  a  certain  type  of  school  building  .  .  .  .  if  we  cannot 
build  one  type  of  school  building  we  can  build  another 
equally  good  type  of  school  building.  If  we  cannot  use  steel 
construction  we  can  use  reinforced  concrete  construction.” 

The  examination  of  the  President  of  the  Board  then  proceeded 
as  follows  (Yol.  Ill,  p.  1268) : 


“  Q.  Now,  the  Mayor  wrote  on  October  18th  that  very 
urgent  letter  to  you,  hoping  you  would  use  that  $10,000,000, 
and  I  do  not  understand  how,  in  view  of  a  letter  of  that  kind 
from  the  Mayor,  you  did  not  begin  to  operate  on  the  ten 
million  dollars.  A.  Well,  I  can’t  very  well  answer  that, 
Senator,  for  this  reason:  First,  I  was  not  the  President  of 
the  Board  at  that  time  and  I  was  not  on  the  Building  Com¬ 
mittee  at  any  time,  never  on  the  Sites  and  Buildings. 

“  Q.  You  seem  to  be  a  good  man  to  write  letters  to.  A. 
But  we  were  at  that  time  under  that  ban,  and  I  do  not  know 
whether  or  not  at  that  time  the  Board  understood  just  what 
this  ten  million  dollars  meant,  whether  it  was  tied  up  spe¬ 
cifically  on  certain  sites  or  buildings,  I  really  couldn’t  say. 
*  -x-  *  *  * 

“  Q.  I  can’t  make  out,  in  view  of  this  correspondence,  how 
it  was  that  the  1918  program,  the  1918—1919  program  of  the 
Board  of  Education  was  delayed  the  way  it  was.  I  am 
unable  to  find  out.  A.-  Well,  it  made  a  contract,  as  I  under¬ 
stand  in  the  beginning,  we  advertised  for  several  contracts ; 
we  made  one  when  the  ban  was  put  on.  That  ban  was  not 
removed  until  November,  until  after  the  Armistice  was 
signed. 

“  Q.  The  1  ltli  of  November?  A.  Until  after  the  Armis¬ 
tice.  Now  this  letter  came  in  October,  and  the  other  letter 

in  July. 

*/ 

“  Q.  Yes;  from  August  to  November,  there  was  a  hiatus 
there.  A.  Well,  we  were  helpless  at  that  time. 

“  Q.  What?  A.  We  were  absolutely  helpless,  as  far  as 
making  contracts  was  concerned. 

“  Q.  About  three  months  ?  A.  Oh,  no ;  it  is  more  than 
that,  from  July  until  practically  the  end  of  the  year. 

“  Q.  That  would  be  four  months . ” 

The  foregoing  quotations  show  the  Mayor’s  impatience  at  the 
failure  of  the  Board  of  Education  to  accomplish  more  and  demon¬ 
strate  how  imperfectly  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Education 
could  explain  the  Board’s  failure.  Every  member  of  a  small 
board  should  be  familiar  with  such  vital  matters  as  insufficient 
school  accommodations  and  every  member  should  charge  himself 
with  the  duty  of  facilitating  a  building  program  that  is  so  sorely 
needed,  and  with  the  responsibility  of  eliminating  obstacles  to  the 
completion  of  such  programs.  That  there  are  many  obstacles  in 
the  existing  practice  is  shown  below: 


36 


Superintendent  of  Schools 
Associate  Superintendent  Shallow 

Board  of  Superintendents 
Board  of  Education 

Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion¬ 
ment 

Associate  Superintendent  Shallow 
Board  of  Superintendents 
Board  of  Education 

Superintendent  of  School  Buildings 

Municipal  Art  Commission 

Bureau  of  Buildings 

Department  of  Water  Supply,  Gas 
and  Electricity 

Board  of  Education 


directs  preparation  of  building  pro¬ 
gram  by 

who  studies  city’s  needs,  reports  on 
order  of  urgency  and,  with  assistance 
of  superintendent  of  school  buildings, 
estimates  cost  of  program,  which  he 
recommends  to  the 

which  considers,  and  then  makes  spe¬ 
cific  recommendations  to  the 

which  considers  program  through  its 
committee  of  the  whole  or  committee 
on  buildings  and  sites,  and  then  acts 
on  such  committee’s  recommenda¬ 
tions,  sending  its  recommendations  to 
the 

which  has  recommendations  examined 

by  its  committee  on  finance  and 
«/ 

budget  and  its  engineers  and  acts 
upon  their  report,  then  notifying  the 
Board  of  Education  of  its  action. 

reports  on  layout  of  individual  build¬ 
ings  in  approved  program  to 

which  acts  thereon  and  sends  its  rec¬ 
ommendations  to 

which  considers  and  takes  appro¬ 
priate  action 

as  soon  as  site  is  acquired,  and  sur¬ 
vey  received,  selects  type  best  suited 
to  neighborhood  and  causes  detailed 
plans  to  be  prepared,  submitting  pre¬ 
liminary  and  final  drawings  to 

which  must  approve  design  before 
buildings  can  "be  erected;  when  this 
approval  is  given  the  general  con¬ 
struction  plans  and  specifications  are 
submitted  by  the  Superintendent  of 
School  Buildings  to 

of  appropriate  borough  for  examina¬ 
tion  and  approval,  while  the  plans 
and  specifications  for  heating  and 
ventilating  (prepared  by  bureau  of 
plant  operation)  and  for  plumbing, 
gasfitting  and  electrical  work  are  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the 

for  examination  and  approval.  These 
plans  and  specifications,  together 
with  those  for  furniture  and  all  other 
equipment,  are  also  transmitted  to 
the 

which,  after  approving  them,  for¬ 
wards  them  to  the 


37 


Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion¬ 
ment 

Board  of  Education 

Superintendent  of  School  Buildings 
Corporation  Counsel 
Superintendent  of  School  Buildings 

Board  of  Education 

Board  of  Education 
Comptroller 

Board  of  Education 

Comptroller 

Board  of  Education 

Superintendent  of  School  Buildings 
Deputy  Superintendent 
Contractor 


which,  through  its  committee  on 
finance  and  budget  and  its  engineers, 
examines  the  plans  and  specifications 
for  general  construction,  sanitary 
work,  heating  and  ventilation,  and 
electrical  work,  together  with  those 
for  furniture  and  all  other  equipment, 
acts  thereon  and  notifies  the 

of  its  action,  and  when  this  action  is 
favorable  the  Board  of  Education 
informs  the 

who  then  submits  proposed  advertise¬ 
ment  and  contract  to  the 

for  approval,  and  when  this  approval 
is  obtained  the 

advertises  for  bids  in  the  City  Rec¬ 
ord  for  ten  days,  then  opens  bids  and 
reports  thereon  to 

which  may  award  the  contract,  if  the 
bid  is  within  the  authorized  amount. 
If  not  within  the  estimate,  the  Board 
of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  must 
approve  the  increase  before  the  con¬ 
tract  can  be  awarded.  After  the 
award  the 

notifies  the 

who  examines  and  passes  on  the  sure¬ 
ties  and  returns  bonds  to 

which  then  signs  contract,  has  it  re¬ 
corded  by  its  auditor  and  returns  it 
to  the 

who  gives  final  approval  as  to  finan¬ 
cial  ability  and  then  advises 

which  notifies  the 

who  notifies  appropriate 

who  directs 

to  start  work. 


Final  payment  cannot  be  made  to  the  contractors  until  the  Municipal  Art 
Commission  issues  a  certificate  that  the  building  is  in  accordance  with 
approved  plans. 


An  examination  of  the  periods  of  time  actually  consumed  by 
the  various  agencies  cooperating  in  the  construction  of  schools 
also  disclosed  some  most  significant  facts.  A  brief  life  his¬ 
tory  was  composed  for  each  of  the  schools  on  the  Board 
of  Education’s  building  program.  In  two  instances  it  was 
found  that  twenty  years  or  more  had  elapsed  from  the  time  the 
recommendation  for  a  new  building  was  made  by  a  local  school 
board  and  the  time  when  the  building  was  opened  for  use.  P.  S. 


38 


Ho.  54,  Brooklyn,  for  example,  was  recommended  by  the  school 
board  of  Brooklyn  in  1901 ;  the  contract  date  for  its  completion  is 
September,  1922. 

There  is  also  delay  due  to  the  requirement  that  plans  and 
specifications  be  submitted  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  for  approval. 
The  examination  of  the  record  of  some  twenty  schools  on  the 
current  building  program  shows  that  plans  and  specifications 
were  before  the  Board  of  Estimate  in  one  instance  for  356  days, 
another  for  211  days,  and  in  eight  cases  for  more  than  50  days. 
This  did  not  take  into  account  the  time  between  the  return  by  the 
Board  of  Estimate  and  a  resubmission  by  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion.  In  one  case  the  same  matter  was  four  times  before  the 
Board  of  Estimate.  In  four  other  cases  the  same  matter  was 
before  the  Board  of  Estimate  three  times. 

A  further  index  of  the  actual  accomplishments  of  the  Board  of 
Education  in  providing  additional  school  facilities  is  afforded  by 
the  following  table  of  authorizations  and  expenditures  for  such 
purposes,  annually  from  1910. 


Statement  Showing  the  Corporate  Stock  Authorizations 


and  Cash  Expenditures  from  January  1,  1910,  to  June 

30,  1921  Cash  Expenditures 

Year  Authorizations  (Sites  and  Buildings) 

1910  . $5,270,173  26  $2,632,110  72 

1911  . 12,138,387  39  4,388,647  65 

1912  .  360,490  00  4,851,716  26 

1913  .  6,131,085  00  4,726,394  67 


Total .  $23,900,135  65  .  $16,598,869  30 

1914  .  $798,194  89  $5,386,927  68 

1915  .  1,505,500  00  4,138,094  66 

1916  .  6,172,084  68  2,567,537  06 

1917  .  6,797,571  13  2,177,079  21 


Total .  15,273,350  70  14,269,638  61 

1918  .  *$678,754  24  $2,233,113  32 

1919  .  7,000,000  00  2,648,070  46 

1920  .  8,000,000  00  5,562,616  73 

1921  . 15,250,000  00  4,780,531  46 


Total .  29,571,245  76  15,224,331  97 


Grand  Total .  $68,744,732  11  $46,092,839  88 


*  Net  rescindment. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  expenditures  of  the  three  and  a  half 
years,  1918  to  July,  1921,  were  but  $15,224,331.97  which,  in  view 
of  the  depreciated  value  of  the  dollar  during  all  this  period  rep- 


resents  not  more  tlian  $8,000,000  in  building  value  on  the  basis  of 
1910  to  1917,  or  about  one-half  of  the  previous  four-year  totals. 

The  average  animal  authorization  for  the  eleven  and  a  half 
years  covered  in  the  above  table  was  $5,977,802.79  and  the 
average  annual  expenditure  $4,008,073.03,  or  about  $6,000,000 
and  $4,000,000,  respectively. 

b.  Fire  Hazards  in  the  Schools. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  Bureau  of  Fire  Prevention  of  the  Fire 
Department  and  the  Bureaus  of  Buildings  in  the  five  boroughs  to 
inspect  school  buildings  to  determine  whether  the  requirements  of 
law  respecting  exits  and  the  elimination  of  fire  hazards  are  being 
complied  with.  In  the  event  that  violations  are  discovered,  it  is 
the  duty  of  these  bureaus  to  serve  notice  thereof  on  the  Board  of 
Education. 

An  examination  was  made  of  the  records  of  the  Board  of 
Education  with  respect  to  such  violations.  It  was  found 
that  at  the  time  of  this  examination,  August,  1921,  there 
were  7,353  violations  of  fire  prevention  rules  recorded  against 
496  of  the  city’s  695  school  buildings.  The  Committee’s  engineer 
estimated  the  cost  of  removing  these  violations  at  about  $4,500,- 
000.  Some  of  the  violations  are  less  serious  than  others,  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  some  are  of  the  very  greatest  moment,  as,  for 
example,  stairways  that  are  not  enclosed  with  fire  and  smoke 
proof  partitions  and  not  provided  with  self-closing  doors ;  interior 
fire  alarm  systems  that  do  not  work;  wooden  and  not  self-closing 
fireproof  doors  along  the  line  of  exit  stairways;  no  hand  fire 
extinguishers  ;  and  storage  of  dangerously  inflammable  materials 
in  non-fireproof  rooms  or  compartments. 

The  seriousness  of  this  situation  is  emphasized  by  the  words 
of  the  Superintendent  of  School  Buildings,  quoted  in  the  minutes 
of  the  Board  of  Education  for  March  23,  1921,  as  follows: 

“  This  with  the  continued  growth  of  the  schools  and  conse¬ 
quent  overcrowding  and  congestion,  causes  me  great  un¬ 
easiness  and  distress  of  mind.  If  the  fire  prevention  work 
was  and  is  required  for  schools  under  normal  conditions, 
how  much  more  important  must  it  be  when  a  building  con¬ 
tains  quite  one-half  or  more  in  excess  of  the  normal  .  . 

why  paint  and  renovate  the  interior  of  a  building  when 
there  are  essential  items  of  fire  prevention  work  to  be  per¬ 
formed  which  would  actually  operate  to  safeguard  life  and 
lessen  fire  risk.” 


40 


But  in  spite  of  the  importance  of  this  work  and  of  the  fact  that 
many  of  these  violations  date  hack  several  years,  only  $250,000 
was  made  available  for  the  removal  of  lire  violations  during  the 
past  four  years,  and  that  appropriation  was  not  made  until  April, 
1921.  The  following  table  shows  how  the  schools  have  been 
neglected  in  this  respect  as  compared  with  the  years  preceding 
this  administration  and  while  it  should  be  stated  that  the  Board 
of  Education  has  made  repeated  requests  since  1918  for  lire  pre¬ 
vention  funds,  these  requests  have  not  been  effective. 


Authorizations  and  Expenditures  for  Fire  Prevention 

Work  as  of  August  10,  1921 


Date  of  Amount  of 

Authorization  Authorization  Expenditures  Balance 

Sept.  16,  1904 .  $300,000  00  $300,000  00  . 

550,000  00  550,000  00  . 

April  3,  1908 .  1,000,000  00  1,000,000  00  . 

June  3,  1910 .  450,000  00  450,000  00  . 

July  17,  1911 .  450,000  00  447,666  59  $2,333  41 

Nov.  19,  1915 .  250,000  00  250,000  00  . 

July  7,  1916 .  250,000  00  250,000  00  . 

April  20,  1917 .  250,000  00  240,660  85  9,339  15 

April  22,  1921 .  250,000  00  .  250,000  00 


On  September  14th  the  Committee  examined  the  Superintend¬ 
ent  of  School  Buildings  on  this  subject.  Significant  portions  of 
the  testimony  are  given  below  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  1364ff)  : 

“Q.  Well,  this  question  of  doing  away  with  violations  of 
the  fire  prevention  rules  has  been  a  matter  of  a  good  deal  of 
concern  to  you  for  several  years,  hasn’t  it  ?  A.  It  has. 

“Q.  And  you  have  made  efforts  to  secure  moneys  for  the 
purpose  of  correcting  the  conditions  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

“Q.  You  have  reported  it  frequently  to  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  ?  A.  I  have. 

“Q.  And  seen  that  it  was  presented  to  the  Board  of  Esti¬ 
mate  and  Apportionment  ?  A.  That  would  not  be  for  me 
to  do. 

“Q.  That  would  not  he  your  function?  A.  1ST o,  sir. 

“Q.  I  see  in  your  letter  of  War.  18,  1921,  that  you  say: 
‘The  condition  in  relation  to  fire  prevention  with  the  con¬ 
tinued  growth  of  schools  and  consequent  overcrowding  and 
congestion,  causes  me  great  uneasiness  and  distress  of  mind.’ 
Is  that  true  ?  A.  It  was. 


41 


“Q.  ‘If  the  fire  prevention  work  was  and  is  required  for 
schools  under  normal  conditions,  how  much  more  important 
must  it  be  when  buildings  contain  quite  one-half  or  more  in 
excess  of  the  normal  V  A.  Yes,  sir. 

“Q.  ‘I  sincerely  hope  that  a  resumption  of  the  carrying 
out  of  this  most  important  work  may  be  brought  about  with¬ 
out  the  stimulus  represented  perhaps  by  some  awful  acci¬ 
dent,  either  here  or  elsewhere.’  You  said  that,  didn’t  you? 

A.  That  is  in  the  letter,  yes. 

“Q.  You  adhere  to  it  ?  A.  I  do. 

“  Q.  And  I  notice  you  say,  ‘  These  orders  (that  is,  the  fire 
prevention  rules)  have  been  and  are  now  available  at  a  mo¬ 
ment’s  notice.  If  there  be  no  intention  of  granting  funds  . 
for  fire  prevention  work,  then  we  should  know  it  and  make  a 
study  of  the  situation,  looking  to  a  decision  as  to  whether 
or  not  all  moneys  for  certain  repairs  should  be  used  for  this 
work.’  Was  any  such  decision  made  to  divert  moneys  for 
repairs  generally  to  this  work?  A.  What  was  the  date  of 
that  letter,  please  ? 

“Q.  March,  1921  ?  A.  Ho. 

“Q.  You  need  the  money  for  other  repairs  that  you  get  ? 

A.  We  do. 

“Q.  And  you  use  it  for  other  repairs?  A.  We  do. 

“Q.  I  notice  you  say,  ‘Why  paint  and  renovate  the  interior 
of  a  building,  when  there  are  essential  items  of  fire  preven¬ 
tion  work  to  be  performed,  which  would  naturally  operate 
to  safeguard  life  and  lessen  fire  risk.’  A.  That  is  a  question 
of  judgment. 

“Q.  ‘The  situation  becomes  more  serious  with  each  day’s 
delay,’  and  then  comes  an  appeal  to  the  Board  of  Education 
to  apply  to  the  Board  of  Estimate.  I  will  read  it :  ‘I  would 
earnestly  recommend  that  the  Board  of  Education  adopt 
resolutions  for  transmission  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Ap¬ 
portionment,  stating  the  stern  necessity  of  prompt  action 
upon  the  Board’s  request  for  funds  to  enable  the  department 
to  undertake  immediately  fire  prevention  work  that  is  ab¬ 
solutely  necessary  if  we  are  to  safeguard  properly  the  lives 
of  the  children  entrusted  to  our  care.’  That  is  your  letter? 

A.  I  believe  it  is,  yes,  sir. 

“Q.  And  I  notice  elsewhere  that  you  state  that  if  the  cor¬ 
rection  of  the  violations  was  compelled,  it  would  result  in 
the  shutting  down  of  a  lot  of  schools?  A.  Pardon  me.  I  do 


not  think  that  that  is  quite  the  meaning  of  that  paragraph 
as  I  recall  it.  I  have  not  seen  it  in  some  time. 

“Q.  Well,  I  was  trying  to  be  brief.  Sometimes  I  am  brief 
at  the  expense  of  accuracy.  A.  I  meant  this,  that  the  fire 
department  have  the  right  to  close  up  any  premises  which  it 
considers  unsafe,  and  we  might  possibly  be  confronted — 
someone  might  reach  such  a  decision,  and  we  would  be  con¬ 
fronted  with  such  a  decision. 

“  Q.  Here  it  says,  ‘  In  the  event,  however,  of  the  Fire 
Department  enforcing  through  legal  proceeding  the  carry¬ 
ing  out  of  the  orders  now  outstanding  on  our  buildings, 
there  would  be  no  alternative,  it  would  seem,  except  to  close 
such  structures  for  the  time  being,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  until  funds  had  become  available  and  the  orders 
executed.’  A.  That  is  what  I  had  reference  to. 

“  Q.  That  is  an  accurate  statement,  is  it  ?  A.  That  is  what 
I  had  reference  to.  The  Fire  Department  could  do  that. 

“Q.  I  meant  to  state  it  in  substance  in  that  form  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Senator  Downing:  Did  the  Fire  Department  close  any 
school  buildings  ? 

The  Witness:  Ho,  sir. 

“  Q.  Here  you  say,  ‘  For  instance,  in  Public  School  117, 
Brooklyn,  which  was  not  originally  intended  for  a  school 
building,  we  have  been  obliged,  much  against  the  wishes  of 
the  District  and  Division  Superintendents,  to  prohibit  the 
use  of  the  upper  floor,  owing  to  the  absence  of  enclosed  fire¬ 
proof  stairway  and  other  items,  the  cost  of  which  was  esti¬ 
mated  about  two  years  ago  to  be  about  $34,000,  and  no  funds 
being  available  for  the  work/  .... 

In  reply  to  a  question  as  to  how  much  money  would  be  required 
to  correct  outstanding  fire  violations,  Superintendent  Snyder 
stated  (Yol.  Ill,  p.  1368)  :  “  Around  four  millions  of  dollars.” 
The  following  quotation  from  the  testimony  gives  Superintend¬ 
ent  Snyder’s  recommendation  for  the  prevention  of  such  an  accu¬ 
mulation  of  uncorrected  violations.  (Yol.  Ill,  p.  1381). 

“Q.  How  what  is  the  matter  with  the  system?  A.  Why, 
the  system  was  that  there  has  never  been  a  policy — the  Board 
of  Education  was  never  in  a  position  to  fix  a  policy  and  go 
ahead  and  do  the  work  systematically  and  know  what  it  could 
do  this  year  and  next  year  and  the  year  after  that. 


4fi 


“  Q.  Because  they  didn’t  have  the  money  ?  A.  They  didn't 
have  the  right  to  fix  a  policy. 

“Q.  To  have  the  money  ?  A.  I  wouldn’t  put  it  that  way. 
They  didn’t  have  the  right  to  fix  a  policy  and  the  ability  to 
carry  it  out  when  once  fixed. 

“Q.  Where  would  you  vest  that  power,  where  should  it  be 
vested  so  as  to  insure  it  being  carried  out  ?  A.  I  think  all 
these  things  resolve  themselves  simply  down  to  this,  that 
the  Board  of  Education  either  should  be  absolutely  independ¬ 
ent  and  handle  its  own  affairs  and  be  able  to  fix  its  policy,  or 
should  know  that  it  is  not  independent  and  must  bow  to  the 
city  departments  or  something  of  the  kind.  It  is  either  one 
thing  or  the  other,  and  everything  can  be  traced  to  that  one 
thing. 

“Q.  Would  you  regard  the  system  under  which  this  large 
accumulation  of  fire  violations  occurs,  is  wrong,  needs  cor¬ 
rection  ?  A.  I  believe  it  does ;  yes,  sir. 

“  Q.  By  statute,  by  law  ?  A.  Whatever  is  necessary  to 
bring  it  about.  You  know  better  than  I  do. 

“Q.  By  law  ?  A.  Some  way  that  it  should  be  done. 

“  Q.  And  there  should  be  some  power  in  connection  with 
the  Board  of  Education  which  will  enable  it  to  meet  these 
violations  of  the  fire  prevention  rules  as  they  come  up  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir ;  and  anything  else  that  comes  up. 

“  Q.  Well,  particularly  these?  A.  Yes,  sir.” 

c.  Failure  to  Repair  Fire  Damage  to  Board  of  Education 
Building 

In  February,  1918,  the  seventh,  eighth  and  ninth  floors  of  the 
Hall  of  the  Board  of  Education,  at  500  Park  Avenue,  housing  the 
executive  offices  of  the  Board,  were  completely  burned  out.  Bids 
for  the  rebuilding  of  these  floors  were  not,  however,  opened  until 
December  7,  1921,  nearly  four  years  after  the  fire.  During  this 
interval  the  work  of  the  Board  has  been  seriously  interfered  with 
because  of  compulsory  vacancy  of  the  three  top  floors  of  its  build¬ 
ing.  The  Bureau  of  School  Buildings,  for  example,  had  to  be 
moved  to  inadequate  quarters  in  the  Municipal  Building,  several 
miles  away  from  the  other  offices  of  the  Board.  The  delay  in 
agreeing  on  new  plans,  in  securing  an  appropriation  and  in  letting 
the  contract  lays  the  Board  of  Education  open  to  the  most  serious 
criticism.  Yo  business  corporation  would  tolerate  such  slovenly 
and  inefficient  methods. 


44 


The  following  extract  from  the  testimony  of  the  President  of 
the  Board  of  Education  on  this  subject  is  illuminating  (Vol.  Ill, 
p.  1325)  : 

“  Q.  Was  there  a  fire  in  the  Board  of  Education  Build¬ 
ing?  A.  *  *  *  Yes,  in  our  building. 

“  Q.  In  your  building?  A.  In  February,  I  think,  1918. 

“  Q.  What  did  that  do?  A.  Well,  it  destroyed,  I  think, 
the  three  upper  floors  of  the  building. 

“  Q.  How  many  floors  have  you  got  ?  A.  It  is  a  9 -story 
building. 

“  Q.  Did  you  need  that  room  ?  A.  Yes,  we  needed  it  badly. 

“  Q.  You  have  needed  it  badly  during  all  that  time  ?  A. 
Yes. 

“  Q.  But  it  has  not  been  restored  ?  A.  No,  it  has  not. 

“  Q.  Only  a  temporary  roof  put  on  it  ?  A.  That  is  all. 

“  Q.  Is  anything  being  done  now  to  correct  it  ?  A.  Yes. 
The  Department  is  working  on  plans.  The  Building  Bureau 
is  working  on  plans. 

“  Q.  That  is,  the  Building  Bureau  of  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion  ?  A.  Of  the  Board  of  Education. 

a  Q.  Haven’t  they  worked  on  plans  before  ?  A.  Plans 
have  been  prepared,  yes. 

u  Q.  They  must  have  had  the  plans  in  the  same  year  it 
burned,  didn’t  they  ?  A.  No,  we  had  no  appropriation  that 
year. 

“  Q.  You  have  to  get  plans  before  you  get  an  appropria¬ 
tion,  don’t  you?  A.  Yes,  but  I  think  we  prepared  plans 
but  failed  to  secure  an  appropriation. 

”  Q.  That  is,  you  prepared  the  plans  in  1918  ?  A.  I  am 
not  sure.  I  think  in  1918,  yes. 

u  Q.  Bight  after  the  fire  ?  A.  And  thereafter,  I  think  the 
plans  were  changed.  They  were  to  change  the  stairways  and 
make  some  other  changes  in  the  building. 

“  Q.  When  were  they  changed?  A.  Well,  that  I  can  not 
tell  you.  The  details  as  to  that  the  Building  Superintendent 
has. 

“  Q.  Who  recommended  the  changes,  the  same  Bureau  ? 
A.  I  think  the  members  of  the  Board  requested  changes,  and 
I  think  perhaps  the  Superintendent  of  Schools. 

“  Q.  Well,  now,  this  plan  for  the  repair  of  this  building 
was  submitted  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  when,  first?  A.  I 
can’t  tell  you,  Senator. 


45 


“  Q.  1918?  A.  I  couldn’t  say;  I  would  have  to  get  the 
facts  on  that;  I  couldn’t  remember  the  dates, 

“  Q.  It  has  been  pending  a  long  time  ?  A.  They  were 
pending  a  long  time,  yes. 

“  Q.  November  27,  1918,  my  records  show?  A.  They 
were  subsequently  changed. 

“  Q.  And  presented  again  June  25,  1919,  the  record 
shows,  and  then  again  in  July  and  then  again  March,  1920, 
and  then  in  May,  1920,  so  you  have  made  abundant  applica¬ 
tion  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  ?  A.  I  have  followed  that  up 
pretty  closely  myself  personally.  We  were  anxious  to  get  in 
the  building  to  have  the  building  repaired  and  we  were  over¬ 
crowded,  and  as  I  say,  we  were  very  anxious  to  get  in  there. 

“  Q.  You  have  needed  the  room  all  the  time,  it  was  occu¬ 
pied  before  the  fire,  wasn’t  it?  A.  It  was  necessary  to  have 
some  of  our  departments  housed  outside  of  the  building,  be¬ 
cause  of  lack  of  space  there,  due  to  the  fire. 

“  Q.  I  say,  it  was  occupied  when  the  fire  occurred  ?  A. 
It  was. 

“  Q.  You  have  needed  it  ever  since  ?  A.  We  have. 

“  Q.  You  have  had  to  hire  some  rooms  outside?  A.  We 
have. 

“  Q.  To  what  extent?  A.  Well,  we  are  not  hiring  any 
rooms  outside  but  we  are  occupying  city  owned  property. 

“  Q.  City  property  ?  A.  Yes.” 

d.  Incomplete  By-Laivs  and  Delayed  Minutes 

Matters  of  less  public  importance  but  of  almost  equal  signifi¬ 
cance  as  indicating  the  degree  of  efficiency  with  which  the  Board 
of  Education  has  administered  the  new  Education  Law  are  those 
relating  to  the  revision  of  the  Board’s  by-laws  and  the  prepara¬ 
tion  of  its  minutes.  The  new  law  of  1917  so  changed  the 
organization  and  scheme  of  the  school  system  that  a  complete  re¬ 
vision  of  the  by-laws  was  necessary  in  order  to  make  them  con¬ 
form  with  the  new  statute.  This  complete  revision  had  not, 
however,  been  made  up  to  September  12,  1921,  when  the  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  Board  of  Education  was  examined  on  this  point  by 
the  Committee.  A  few  sections  had  been  adopted  in  new  form, 
but  the  great  bulk  of  the  by-laws  was  still  in  the  form  of  a  vol¬ 
ume  published  in  1914  with  literally  hundreds  of  amendment 
slips  pasted  to  the  appropriate  pages,  many  of  which  antedate 


46 


the  law  of  1917  and  in  the  form  of  special  documents  containing 
salary  schedules  as  enacted  by  the  Legislature. 

A  Board  which  can  permit  a  delay  of  nearly  four  years  in  the 
preparation  and  adoption  of  by-laws  to  govern  the  administration 
of  the  public  school  system  of  which  it  is  the  head,  cannot  escape 
criticism  on  the  ground  of  incapacity  or  lack  of  interest  in  the 
great  responsibility  with  which  it  is  charged. 

The  Board  has  also  tolerated  during  its  term  of  office  a  condi¬ 
tion  which  no  business  house  would  permit  to  exist  for  a  moment. 
The  minutes  of  Board  meetings  are  records  of  the  greatest  import¬ 
ance  to  teachers,  board  members,  board  officers  and  citv  authori- 
ties  as  they  are  the  official  documents  setting  forth  the  Board's 
determinations  and  decisions.  The  last  volume  of  minutes,  how¬ 
ever,  to  be  furnished  with  a  printed  index  is  that  for  1915.  The 
index  for  1916  is  said  to  be  completed,  hut  it  has  not  yet  gone  to 
the  printer.  A  delay  of  five  years  in  indexing  current  minutes  is 
inexcusable.  Another  instance  of  the  dilatoriness  permitted  by 
the  Board  is  the  fact  that  it  takes  the  secretary's  office  about  two 
months  to  issue  printed  minutes,  of  Board  meetings.  The  Com¬ 
mittee  has  been  on  the  mailing  list  for  these  minutes  and  on  the 
day  that  this  statement  is  written  (December  7,  1921)  the  last 
meeting  for  which  minutes  have  been  received  is  that  of  Septem¬ 
ber  28,  1921,  and  those  minutes  came  only  a  few  days  ago.  There 
has  been  a  constant  lag  of  about  two  months  between  board 
meeting  and  receipt  of  minutes  ever  since  the  Committee  started 
inquiry  in  this  direction. 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  a  small  Board  of  Education  can  be 
more  efficient  than  a  large  board,  and  that  the  abolition  of  the 
former  board  of  46  members  was  most  desirable.  It  seems  quite 
certain,  however,  that  a  Board  of  Education  of  seven  members  is 
too  small  for  the  City  of  Yew  York.  Boards  of  Education  in 
other  cities  of  the  state  number  from  three  to  nine  members ; 
about  twenty  cities  having  boards  of  nine ;  about  twenty-five  cities 
having  boards  of  from  five  to  seven,  and  the  others  having  boards 
of  from  three  to  five.  It  is  not  logical  that  Yew  York,  the  largest 
city  of  the  state,  should  have  a  Board  of  Education  smaller  than 
the  Board  of  Education  in  twenty  other  cities  with  far  less  inhab¬ 
itants.  The  Yew  York  Board  of  Education  should  be  large  enough 
to  handle  its  problems  effectively  and  yet  not  so  large  as  to  be 
unwieldv,  and  its  term  of  office  should  he  uniform  with  the  terms 
of  office  of  Boards  of  Education  in  the  other  cities  of  the  state. 


47 


It  seems  equally  certain  that  the  statutes  should  impose 
some  means  for  guaranteeing  the  quality  of  the  local  appoint¬ 
ments  to  the  Board  of  Education.  Appointment  should  be  made 
on  the  basis  of  qualification  for  the  duties  to  be  performed.  An 
appointing  officer  with  unrestricted  power  to  appoint  is  subject 
to  a  degree  of  external  political  pressure  to  which  it  is  difficult 
not  to  respond,  and  political  considerations  should  play  no  part 
in  the  selection  of  members  of  a  Board  of  Education. 

From  the  foregoing  account  of  the  division  of  responsibility 
between  city  and  educational  authorities  under  the  present  stat¬ 
ute,  it  is  also  clear  that  the  only  remedy  lies  in  so  amending  the 
law  as  to  centralize  power  in  a  single  agency.  If  the  Board  of 
Education  is  to  be  responsible  for  the  proper  conduct  of  the 
schools,  it  should  have  the  power  to  carry  out  its  program  without 
hindrance. 

2.  Possibilities  of  conflict  between  the  Board  of  Education  and 
the  Superintendent  of  Schools ,  relative  to  their  respective  powers. 

Tinder  the  Greater  Yew  York  Charter,  the  Board  of  Education 
had  specific  power  to  enact  by-laws  “  defining  the  duties  of  the 
city  superintendent  of  schools.”  The  Education  Law  of  1917  re¬ 
pealed  this  section  of  the  charter  (Section  1068)  and  did  not 
enact  an  equivalent. 

In  addition  to  this  negative  act,  it  specifically  constituted  the 
Superintendent  of  Schools,  “  the  chief  executive  officer  of  such 
board”  (of  education),  and  gave  him  power  subject  to  the  by- 
laws,  “  to  enforce  all  provisions  of  law  and  all  rules  and  regu¬ 
lations  relating  to  the  management  of  the  schools.”  He  was  also 
given  specific  jurisdiction  over  the  employees  of  the  Board  of 
Education. 

The  material  for  a  serious  controversy  between  the  Board  and 
its  Superintendent  was  thus  at  hand  and  controversy  developed. 
The  new  Board  of  Education  adopted  new  by-laws,  defining  the 
powers  of  its  President,  of  the  Board  and  of  its  subordinates. 
The  Superintendent  of  Schools!  felt  that  his  prerogatives  under 
the  statute  had  been  invaded  by  these  by-laws  and  appealed  to  the 
State  Commissioner  of  Education  for  relief.  The  Commissioner 
upheld  him  and  directed  the  Board  to  amend  its  by-laws  so  as  to 
eliminate  the  objectionable  provisions.  The  significance  of  the 
decision  by  the  Commissioner  is  indicated  by  the  alterations  that 


48 


were  made  by  the  Board  pursuant  to  bis  injunction,  some  of  which 
are  quoted  below. 


First  V ersion 

Sec.  3.  ‘‘Any  salaried  officer,  clerk 
or  other  employee  may  be  suspended 
by  the  President  or  Superintendent  of 
Schools.  .  .  .” 

Sec.  4,  Par.  2.  “  The  President  shall 
exercise  general  supervision  over  the 
transaction  of  the  business  affairs  of 
the  Board  of  Education  and  shall 
have  the  power  to  require  that  re¬ 
ports  be  made  to  him  by  any  officer 
or  employee  for  his  use  and  informa¬ 
tion,  or  for  presentation  to  the  Board 
for  its  consideration  and  action.  The 
Superintendent  of  Schools  shall  act 
in  the  administration  of  business  af¬ 
fairs  under  the  advice  and  guidance 
of  the  President.” 

First  Version 

Sec.  6,  Par.  5.  The  Superintendent 
of  Schools  “  shall  recommend  to  the 
Board  of  Education  the  organization 
of  day  and  evening  schools  and  other 
educational  and  recreational  activi¬ 
ties  into  major  divisions,  each  of 
which  shall  be  supervised  by  an  asso¬ 
ciate  superintendent,  to  be  assigned 
by  the  Superintendent  of  Schools, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Board 
of  Education.” 

Sec.  6,  Par.  8.  Belative  to  the  Su¬ 
perintendent  of  Schools,  “  In  his  ab¬ 
sence  or  inability  to  serve,  the  Board 
of  Education  shall  designate  an  as¬ 
sociate  superintendent  to  serve  as 
acting  Superintendent  of  Schools.” 

Sec.  7,  Par.  10.  Relative  to  the 
Board  of  Superintendents,  44  It  shall 
make  rules  and  regulations  with  the 
approval  of  the  Board  of  Education 
for  the  admission  of  pupils  to  the 
schools,  for  their  promotion,  gradua¬ 
tion  and  for  their  transfer  from  one 
school  to  another.” 


Amended  Version 

“Any  salaried  officer,  clerk  or  other 
employee  may  be  suspended  by  the 
Superintendent  of  Schools.  .  . 


“  The  President  shall  perform  the 
functions  that  appertain  to  the  office 
of  a  presiding  officer.  The  Board 
may  require  that  reports  be  made  for 
its  consideration  and  action  by  any 
officer  or  employee.” 


Amended  Version 

The  Superintendent  of  Schools 
“  shall  recommend  to  the  Board  of 
Education  the  organization  of  day 
and  evening  schools  and  other  edu¬ 
cational  and  recreational  activities 
into  major  divisions.  Each  of  said 
divisions  shall  be  supervised  by  an 
associate  superintendent,  to  be  as¬ 
signed  by  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools.” 


“  In  his  absence  or  inability  to 
serve,  he  shall  designate  an  associate 
superintendent  as  acting  superintend¬ 
ent  of  schools.” 


“  It  shall  make  rules  and  regula¬ 
tions  for  the  admission  of  pupils  to 
the  schools,  for  their  promotion  and 
graduation  and  for  their  transfer 
from  one  school  to  another.” 


The  testimony  of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  before  the 
Committee  on  September  14,  1921,  on  this  subject  was  as  follows 
(Vol.  Ill,  p.  1407) : 

“  Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  reasonable  coordination 
could  be  expected  from  the  educational  system  as  it  is  now 


49 


organized ;  that  is,  between  the  Board  of  Education  and  the 
Superintendent  and  the  Board  of  Associate  Superintendents. 
That  works  well,  does  it?  A.  Within  the  Board,  yes.  That 
is,  between  the  Board  of  Education,  the  Board  of  Superin¬ 
tendents,  and  the  Superintendent  of  Schools. 

“  Q.  They  cooperate  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  success 
and  efficiency?  A.  Yes,  sir,  they  do  now. 

“  Senator  Downing :  In  harmony  ? 

“  The  Witness:  Yes.  It  took  a  good  while  to  get  har¬ 
mony,  naturally.  I  might  explain  here  that  this  new  law 
created  an  entirely  new  condition,  and  the  tradition  was  in 
the  Board  of  Education  that  affairs  should  he  carried  on  as 
they  had  been  carried  on  before  this  law,  and  in  the  carrying 
out  of  the  business  of  the  Board,  there  may  have  been  a 
little  conflict  with  the  powers  of  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools,  as  lie  conceived  them,  and  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools,  of  course,  in  his  high  regard  for  the  sacredness  of 
his  office,  had  to  protest  against  any  such  action  and  appeal 
to  the  State  Commissioner.  That  was  perfectly  natural. 
There  was  not  any  acrimony  on  either  side.  It  was  simply 
a  definition  of  powers.  It  took  two  years  to  straighten  that 
out. 

“  Q.  You  have  it  straightened  out  now?  A.  Yes,  sir,  it 
is  straightened  out  now. 

“  Q.  And  the  present  workings  are  smooth  ?  A.  At  pres¬ 
ent,  yes,  sir.” 

A  situation  where  a  Board  of  Education,  nominallv  the  head 
of  a  school  system,  is  by  statute  given  inferior  powers  to  those  of 
one  of  its  subordinates,  is  unwholesome  and  subversive  of  dis¬ 
cipline.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  a  self-respecting  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion  could  acquiesce  in  such  a  condition.  Responsibility  and 
authority  should  he  placed  in  the  same  hands.  If  a  Board  of 
Education  is  not  deemed  competent  to  administer  the  affairs  of 
the  school  system,  the  remedy  lies  not  in  elevating  an  appointee 
of  that  Board  to  a  position  superior  to  that  of  the  Board  itself, 
but  in  changing  the  character  of  the  Board. 

A  continuance  of  this  unwholesome  condition  would  be  most 
unfortunate.  The  Board  of  Education  should  be  the  unquestioned 
fiscal  and  policy  determining  head  of  the  school  system  and  it 
should  have  full  power  to  delegate  to  its  subordinates  the  responsi- 


50 


bility  of  carrying  out  the  policies  upon  which  it  determines. 
It  is  of  course  true  that  a  Board  of  Education  has  not  the  technical 
pedagogical  training  possessed  by  the  professional  staff  and 
that  lay  interference  in  the  actual  teaching  of  the  children 
might  be  most  dangerous,  and  that  certain  safeguards  must 
be  established  by  law  which  will  insure  a  reasonable  degree  of 
freedom  to  the  professional  head  of  the  school  system.  On  the 
other  hand  there  is  ample  evidence  that  the  law  under  which 
the  Board  of  Education  now  operates  does  not  satisfactorily 
meet  this  problem.  In  a  city  like  New  York,  which  has  the 
greatest  educational  problem  in  the  world,  it  does  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  professional  schoolman  best  qualified  to  carry  out 
the  educational  program  of  the  schools  will  also  possess  the  quali¬ 
fications  to  supervise  the  strictly  business  duties  of  the  school 
system,  such  as  the  purchase  of  supplies,  the  construction  and 
alteration  of  buildings,  the  assignment  of  janitors  and  other  em¬ 
ployees,  etc.,  even  if  he  had  the  time.  In  a  smaller  city,  where 
these  business  matters  do  not  constitute  the  burden  that  thev  do 
in  New  York,  the  Superintendent  may  be  able  to  exercise  the  two 
functions  without  detriment  to  either.  This  is  not  likely,  how¬ 
ever,  ever  to  be  true  in  New  York  City,  and  yet  under  the  present 
Education  Law  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  is  made  the  execu¬ 
tive  officer  of  the  Board  of  Education,  with  jurisdiction  not  only 
over  the  educational  side  of  the  Board’s  work,  but  also  over  the 
Board’s  business  activities.  Authority  should,  therefore,  be  given 
to  the  Board  of  Education  to  delegate  the  non-professional  and 
administrative  duties  to  some  officer  other  than  the  Superintend¬ 
ent  of  Schools,  if  it  deems  it  wise  to  do  so. 

3.  Possibility  of  Conflict  Between  the  Board  of  Education  and  the 
Municipal  Authorities  Relative  to  their  Respective  Powers 

The  repeal  of  most  of  the  educational  chapter  of  the  charter 
and  the  enactment  of  an  entirely  new  statute  changing  the  rela¬ 
tionship  between  the  Board  of  Education  and  the  city  authorities 
afforded  an  opportunity  for  either  friction  or  co-operation  in  the 
working  out  of  the  new  relationship.  From  the  records  it  appears 
that  it  was  friction  and  not  co-operation  which  resulted,  and  this 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Board  of  Education  was  composed 
wholly  of  persons  appointed  by  the  present  Mayor. 

The  chief  points  at  issue  are  set  forth  fully  in  a  brief  submit¬ 
ted  on  April  4,  1919,  by  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  to  a  Com- 


51 


mittee  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  requesting  relief  from  “the  unlaw¬ 
ful  control  of  the  public  school  system  ...  by  the  municipal 
authorities.”  This  brief  noted  the  following  points. 

1.  That  the  municipal  authorities  diverted  the  State  school 

moneys  for  1918  amounting  to  some  $2,300,000  from  the 
Board  of  Education  to  the  general  fund  for  the  reduction 
of  taxation,  following  the  provisions  of  Sec.  1102  of  the 
charter  instead  of  Sec.  880  of  the  Education  Law. 

2.  That  the  municipal  authorities  sought  to  control  educational 

policies  and  administrative  details  by  a  minute  segregation 
of  appropriations  and  the  imposition  of  terms  and  condi¬ 
tions. 

3.  That  the  municipal  authorities  assumed  a  jurisdiction  over 

administrative  employees  of  the  Board  and  by  withholding 
their  pay  worked  great  hardship. 

4.  That  the  municipal  authorities  sought  to  gain  entrance  into 

the  school  system  and  establish  jurisdiction  over  school  affairs 
through  the  intrusion  of  the  Commissioner  of  Accounts  into 
the  business  of  the  Beard. 

5.  That  the  attitude  of  the  Mayor,  as  indicated  by  his  oral  and 

written  utterances,  was  significant  of  the  relationship  be¬ 
tween  the  City  and  the  school  authorities. 

The  Mayor’s  attitude  toward  school  affairs  was  further  devel¬ 
oped  in  the  testimony  of  the  Committee,  copies  of  letters  written 
by  him  having  been  read  into  the  record. 

Extracts  from  these  letters  and  from  others  in  the  Committee’s 
possession  follow: 

(Vol.  Ill,  p.  1272)  Erom  the  Mayor  to  Mr.  Brail,  ISTov.  25, 

1918. 

The  by-laws  “now  pending  and  supported  by  Superintend¬ 
ent  Ettinger  would  place  that  department  in  a  position  that 
would  require  all  reports  upon  investigations  ordered  by 
the  Board  of  Education  to  come  to  the  Board  through  the 
Superintendent.  This  is  part  of  a  policy  which,  if  persisted 
in,  makes  the  Superintendent  a  dictator  and  practically  the 
superior  of  the  Board  of  Education. 

“Superintendent  Ettinger  is  submissive  to  and  is  practi¬ 
cally  controlled  by  Cook,  the  Auditor,  who  is  the  trouble¬ 
maker  in  the  Board  of  Education  and  has  little  regard  for 
the  expenditure  of  money  appropriated  for  educational  pur¬ 
poses. 


“I  regret  to  be  obliged  to  writ©  you  about  this,  but  unless 
the  Board  of  Education  puts  an  end  to  the  dictation  of  Cook, 
through  Ettinger,  there  is  little  hope  that  we  will  be  able  to 
accomplish  anything  for  the  improvement  of  school  condi¬ 
tions  in  this  city.  A  year  has  almost  passed  and  practically 
nothing  in  a  constructive  way  lias  been  accomplished  by  the 
new  Board  of  Education. 

“Won’t  you  please  exercise  the  rights  given  you  under  the 
law  to  see  that  the  Board  of  Education  and  not  the  subordi¬ 
nates  run  the  schools  of  this  City  ?  ” 

t/ 


When  questioned  about  the  “Cook”  referred  to  in  this  letter, 
President  Prall  testified,  “He  is  an  auditor,  a  very  good  auditor; 
understands  his  business  thoroughly.  We  depend  on  him  absc- 
lutelv.” 

“Q.  He  has  the  confidence  of  the  Board  ?  A.  We  depend 

on  him  absolutely, 

«/' 

“Q.  He  has  the  confidence  of  the  Board  ?  A.  He  has. 

“Q.  And  Ettinger  the  same  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 


(Yol.  Ill,  p.  1277)  From  the  Mayor  to  Mr.  Prall,  June  27, 

1919. 

“My  Dear  Commissioner :  I  wish  vou  would  confer  with 
the  members  of  the  Board  of  Education  and  see  to  it  that 
no  increases  in  salary  are  made  in  the  Educational  Depart¬ 
ment,  until  such  time  as  we  find  how  financial  matters  stand 
in  the  Department. 

“Cook,  Ettinger  and  Company  have  so  bungled  matters 
that  it  will  be  hard  to  straighten  things  out.” 


(Yol.  Ill,  }).  1277) 


From  the  Mayor  to  Mr.  Prall,  June  14, 


1919. 

“Dear  Sir:  I  note  that  Superintendent  Ettinger,  who  is 
anxious  to  have  the  Legislature  increase  his  salary  by  $5,000, 
which  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  opposed, 
is  attempting  to  give  the  public  the  impression  that  the  Board 
of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  is  opposed  to  keeping  open 
the  swimming  pools  in  the  public  schools.  This  is  absolutely 
false,  and  Ettinger  knows  it. 

“There  has  been  $45,000,000  appropriated  by  the  present 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  for  the  public  schools 
of  the  city,  and  out  of  that  there  will  be  sufficient  to  pay  the 
few  attendants  necessary,  the  cost  of  which  is  less  than 
$7,000,  to  look  after  the  swimming  pools  for  the  summer. 


“  Ettinger  had  no  trouble  in  finding  money  out  of  the 
$45,000,000  to  start  new  activities  so  that  his  friends  could 
get  high  salaried  jobs  and  increases  in  salary  for  other  Ettin¬ 
ger  favorites. 

“A  man  who  resorts  to  such  methods  to  mislead  the  public 
is  not  the  proper  person  to  be  Superintendent  of  the  Schools 
of  the  City  of  New  York.” 

On  August  6,  1919,  the  Mayor  referred  to  the  Police  Commis¬ 
sioner  for  investigation  an  anonymous  letter  charging  that  the 
Superintendent  of  Schools  had  improperly  pensioned  a  teacher. 
The  Police  Department  made  an  investigation  and  reported  on 
Sept.  3,  1919,  naturally  finding  nothing  to  support  the  accusa¬ 
tion  as  all  pensions  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Teachers’ 
Retirement  Board  and  not  under  the  Superintendent  of  Schools. 

On  September  2,  1920,  the  Mayor  wrote  President  Prall  as 
follows : 

“Dear  Sir :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  September 
1st  with  reference  to  the  refusal  of  the  Department  of 
Finance  to  honor  the  payrolls  of  the  Board  of  Education 
so  that  the  teaching  force  will  receive  the  increases  granted 
them  under  the  mandatory  legislation  passed  by  the  Legis¬ 
lature  at  its  last  session. 

“The  Board  of  Education  should  immediately  begin  man¬ 
damus  proceedings  against  the  Comptroller  to  compel  him 
to  pay  the  salaries  now  legally  due  the  teachers. 

“  I  have  directed  Corporation  Counsel  O’Brien  to  confer 
with  you  without  delay  to  the  end  that  the  teachers’  salaries 
be  paid  without  any  further  quibbling.” 

On  September  23,  1919,  the  Mayor  wrote  President  Prall  in 
part  as  follows: 

Ettinger  bitterly  opposed  the  investigation  of  the  expen¬ 
diture  of  $44,000,000  appropriated  for  educational  purposes. 
He  now  seems  to  have  the  City  Club  behind  him  to  help  him 
thwart  vour  investigation  of  the  finances  of  the  educational 
department  and  ether  conditions  in  our  school  system.  The 
Board  of  Education  should  take  some  action  so  that  Ettinger 
will  give  his  time  to  educating  the  children  and  bettering 
conditions  in  our  public  schools  instead  of  playing  education 
politics  and  making  trouble  for  those  who  want  school-houses 
erected  and  the  children  given  a  proper  education.” 


54 


On  December  4,  1919,  the  Mayor  wrote  the  Corporation 
Counsel  as  follows: 

“  Dear  Mr.  Burr:  I  congratulate  you  upon  your  success 
in  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case  of  Hirshfield,  Commis¬ 
sioner  of  Accounts  of  the  City  of  Hew  York  against  Cook, 
Auditor  of  the  Educational  Department.  I  understand  the 
decision  was  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  city  investigating 
the  financial  condition  of  the  educational  system. 

“  The  Board  of  Education  have  at  all  times,  as  you  know, 
been  in  favor  of  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  financial 
condition  of  the  educational  system  under  Superintendent 
Ettinger,  but  this  policy  was  opposed  by  Superintendent  Et- 
tinger  and  Auditor  Cook,  and  other  prominent  persons  in  the 
city  who  for  some  reason,  feel  that  the  taxpayers  should  not 
know  what  is  being  done  with  their  money.  However,  the 
Court  of  Appeals  has  sustained  the  city’s  contention  and  the 
investigation  can  now  go  on. 

“  If  Ettinger  and  Cook  had  not  been  encouraged  by  Fine- 
gan  of  the  State  Educational  Department  they  would  not 
have  attempted  to  override  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion,  their  superiors,  and  the  people  of  this  city  would  have 
known  long  ago  whether  the  finances  of  the  Board  of  Educa 
tion  were  being  properly  expended. 

“  The  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  should  he  suffi¬ 
cient  to  convince  Superintendent  Ettinger  that  his  superiors, 
the  Board  of  Education,  must  be  recognized,  and  that  he  can¬ 
not  override  them  with  the  aid  of  Deputy  Einegan  at 
Albany. 

“  Superintendent  Ettinger  can  now  devote  his  time  to  the 
proper  housing  and  education  of  the  children  and  the  better¬ 
ing  of  the  moral  tone  of  the  schools  of  the  city. 

u  The  people  of  the  city  appropriate  millions  of  dollars 
yearly  for  the  better  education  of  their  children.  They 
want  a  sufficient  number  of  school-houses  to  properly  house 
the  little  ones  and  a  thorough  fundamental  education  given 
to  them.  They  do  not  want  their  money  wasted  for  unneces¬ 
sary  textbooks,  fads,  frills  and  fancies. 

“  It  is  a  pleasure  to  remember  that  the  great  judges  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  have  stood  hv  the  people  and  against  the 
traction  interests  in  their  fight  for  an  increased  fare,  and 
again  by  the  people  and  against  those  in  the  school  system 


55 


who  objected  to  the  people  knowing  what  is  done  with  the 
millions  they  appropriate  yearly  for  education,  as  well  as 
the  many  other  important  cases  which  are  of  great  interest 
and  importance  to  the  people.’’ 

On  December  9,  1919,  President  Prall  wrote  the  Mayor  as  fol¬ 
lows  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  1282)  : 

“  My  Dear  Mr.  Mayor:  Some  time  between  Friday  even¬ 
ing,  December  5tli,  and  yesterday  (Monday)  morning,  De¬ 
cember  8th,  certain  correspondence  in  my  files,  i.  e.,  all  the 
letters  received  by  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Education 
from  the  Corporation  Counsel,  and  all  the  duplicate 
copies  of  letters  sent  to  the  Corporation  Counsel  during  the 
period  from  January,  1919,  to  date,  were  surreptitiously 
removed. 

“  I,  therefore,  respectfully  request  that  you  assign  to  this 
case  capable  men  from  the  detective  bureau  of  the  Police  De¬ 
partment  in  order  that  I  may  apprehend  the  person  or  per¬ 
sons  guilty  of  this  outrage.’’ 

Mr.  Prall  testified  that  he  regarded  this  as  an  important  loss 
but  that  the  guilty  parties  were  never  apprehended.  In  reply  to 
the  question  whether  there  were  any  matters  pending  at  the  time 
of  the  theft  on  which  the  correspondence  had  a  hearing  Mr.  Prall 
stated  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  1285) : 

“  I  think  the  controversy  between  the  Superintendent  of 
Schools  and  the  Commissioner  of  Accounts  wTas  on  at  that 
timed’ 

On  December  20,  1919,  the  Mavor  wrote  President  Prall  a 
letter  in  which  the  following  statement  is  made: 

“  There  is  no  discipline  in  the  educational  system  under 
Superintendent  Ettinger.  Certain  principals  and  certain 
high  officials  spend  little  time  performing  the  duties  for 
which  they  are  paid.  Some  action  should  be  taken  by  tlia 
Board  of  Education  to  punish  insubordination.” 

The  person  not  already  familiar  with  conditions  in  Hew  York 
City  during  the  past  four  years  must  read  this  correspondence 
with  amazement.  But  even  the  foregoing  extracts  do  not  tell  the 
whole  story  of  the  antagonism  between  municipal  and  educational 
authorities. 

The  Couid  of  Appeals  decided  a  case  on  November  22,  1921, 
that  may  prove  of  great  significance  in  the  future  determination 


5G 


of  the  relationship  between  municipal  and  educational  authori¬ 
ties,  but  unless  the  City  and  the  Board  of  Education  can  agree 
as  to  the  bearing  of  this  decision  upon  the  current  business  of  the 
public  school  system  there  may  be  frequent  recourse  to  litigation 
of  a  similar  nature.  A  certain  cure  would  be  the  revision  of  the 
Education  Law  as  affecting  New  York  City.  The  decision 
referred  to  is  printed  in  the  New  York  Law  Journal  for  Decem¬ 
ber  20,  1921,  and  reads  in  part  as  follows: 

“  Section  880  of  the  Education  Law  provides  that  all 
funds  collected  or  received  from  any  source  for  school 
purposes  shall  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  city  and  shall 
be  credited  to  the  board  of  education ;  that  such  funds  shall 
be  disbursed  only  by  authority  of  the  board  of  education 
and  upon  written  orders  drawn  on  the  city  treasurer  or 
other  fiscal  officer  of  the  city,  such  orders  to  be  signed  by  the 
superintendent  of  schools  and  the  secretary  of  the  board  of 
education  or  such  other  officer  as  the  board  mav  authorize. 
The  city  treasurer  is  inhibited  from  permitting  the  use  of 
said  funds  for  any  purpose  other  than  that  for  which  they 
are  lawfully  authorized,  or  paying  out  said  funds  except  on 
audit  of  the  hoard  of  education  and  the  countersignature  of 
the  comptroller.  A  casual  reading  of  the  Education  Law 
leads  to  the  conclusion,  so  tersely  stated  in  the  Gunnison  case, 
that  the  only  relation  of  the  city  to  the  subject  of  education 
is  as  custodian  of  the  school  funds  and  to  disburse  the  same 
according  to  the  instructions  of  the  board  of  education. 

“  The  language  quoted  from  subdivision  7,  6  the  board  of 
education  shall  administer  all  moneys  appropriated  or  avail¬ 
able  for  educational  purposes  in  the  city,  subject  to  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  law  relating  to  the  audit  and  payment  of  salaries 
and  other  claims  by  the  department  of  finance,’  must  be 
read  in  connection  with  section  880  of  the  Education  Law, 
which  provides  that  school  funds  shall  be  disbursed  only  by 
the  board  of  education,  and  clothes  that  body  with  power  of 
audit. 

“  The  power  vested  in  the  board  of  education  to  administer 
the  school  fund  is  a  grant  of  authority  to  that  body  to  fix 
salaries  of  all  employees  of  the  board.  Such  salaries  when 
fixed  by  the  board  are  presumably  embodied  in  the  estimate 
filed  with  the  board  of  estimate  and  apportionment.  Upon 
receipt  of  a  requisition  from  the  board  of  education  the 


57 


comptroller  is  authorized  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the 
requisition  made  upon  him  embraces  charges  against  the 
education  fund  as  disclosed  in  the  record  in  his  department 
relating  to  the  board  of  education.  If  such  requisition  be 
found  correct  there  remains  but  one  duty  on  the  part  of  the 
comptroller,  viz,  to  draw  the  necessary  warrant  for  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  the  salaries,  etc.  lie  is  powerless  to  exercise  a  power 
of  audit  conferred  on  the  board  of  education.  We  cannot 
ascribe  to  the  Legislature  an  intention  to  provide  for  two 
several  boards  of  audit.  The  language  used  in  subdivision  7 
was  applicable  only  to  the  procedure  to  be  adopted  by  the 
board  of  education  that  in  the  disbursement  of  its  funds  it 
shall  adopt  the  procedure  prevailing  in  the  case  of  claims 
against  the  city,  require  as  it  did  in  the  case  at  bar  pre¬ 
sentation  of  the  claim,  proofs  in  support  of  the  validity  of 
the  same,  the  extent  and  value  of  the  labor  and  material  and 
generally  all  information  obtainable  relating  thereto  before 
any  allowance  or  audit  of  the  same  shall  be  made.  Had 
relator  in  the  first  instance  filed  its  claim  with  the  comp¬ 
troller,  as  is  asserted  it  should  have  done,  and  the  comptroller 
audited  the  same  for  a  stated  amount  and  drawn  a  warrant 
for  the  same  on  the  city  treasurer,  the  latter  officer  could 
not  pay  the  same  save  hv  a  violation  of  the  provision  of  the 
Education  Law,  which  prohibits  the  treasurer  from  making 
payment  from  the  school  fund  except  on  audit  of  the  board 
of  education.” 

It  is  regrettable,  to  say  the  least,  that  the  possibility  for  such 
controversies  should  exist  and  that  if  existing,  the  issues  should 
have  been  raised.  It  is  equally  regrettable  that  it  should  have  been 
necessary  for  the  parties  to  such  disputes  to  have  recourse  to  the 
courts,  to  the  Regents  and  to  the  State  Commissioner  of  Educa- 
tion,  because  whichever  side  was  favored  in  the  decisions,  the 
litigation,  confusion  and  consequent  irritation  must  necessarily 
react  on  the  children  whose  education  is  suffering  from  the  dis¬ 
agreement  between  school  and  city  authorities.  So  far  as  the 
wording  of  the  statutes  affords  an  excuse  for  such  conditions  the 
statutes  should  be  amended  and  the  excuse  removed. 

This  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  lends  judicial  sanction  to 
the  suggestion  that  the  dual  control  over  school  moneys  hereto¬ 
fore  exercised  or  claimed  be  ended,  by  specifically  excluding  the 
municipal  authorities  from  any  control  over  school  funds. 


58 


Jf..  Failure  to  C oncentrate  in  Clear  and  Unmistakable  Language 
Full  Responsibility  for  the  Proper  Administration  of  the 
Public  School  System  Either  on  the  Municipal  Authorities , 
the  Board  of  Education  or  the  State  of  New  York 

The  evidence  to  support  this  interpretation  is  adequately  set 
forth  under  the  two  sub-divisions  immediately  preceding.  It  is 
onlv  necessarv  to  add  here  that  if  the  State  is  to  assume  full 

%j  «/ 

responsibility  for  the  proper  administration  of  the  Yew  York 
City  school  system  it  should  enunciate  that  fact  in  clear  terms 
and  should  specifically  repeal  those  sections  of  the  charter  and 
other  local  laws  in  conflict  with  that  theory. 

5.  Limitation  of  the  Powers  of  the  Board  of  Education 

This  point  has  been  touched  upon  under  sub-division  2  above. 
The  powers  of  the  present  Board  of  Education  are  demonstrably 
far  inferior  to  those  of  its  predecessor.  It  cannot  be  successfully 
argued  that  the  powers  of  a  Board  of  Education  should  be  limited 
in  favor  of  one  of  its  subordinates,  or  that  if  local  control  is  desir¬ 
able  the  Board  should  be  unable  to  modify  or  dispense  with  two 
powerful  agencies  nominally  subordinate  to  it,  viz.,  the  Board 
of  Superintendents  and  the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education. 
The  State  Education  Law  in  so  far  as  it  applies  to  the  City  of  Yew 
York  clearly  curtails  the  power  of  the  Board  of  Education.  It 
does  not  seem  that  the  experience  of  the  past  four  years  indicates 
that  this  was  a  wise  provision.  So  long  as  responsibility  and 
authority  are  not  entrusted  to  the  same  hands  there  is  encourage- 
ment  for  an  evasion  of  obligation  and  a  shifting  of  blame  for 
non-performance.  And  in  all  cases  of  this  character  the  ultimate 
sufferers  are  the  children  for  whose  benefit  Boards  of  Education, 
Boards  of  Superintendents  and  school  officers  are  supposedly 
created. 

6.  Great  Increase  in  the  Powers  of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools 

This  matter  has  also  been  discussed  at  length  under  sub-division 
2  above  and  it  will  not  be  further  dealt  with  here. 

7.  Perpetuation  of  the  Board  of  Superintendents 

The  Board  of  Superintendents  is  a  unique  institution.  It  is  an 
inheritance  from  the  time  of  consolidation  (1898)  when  it  was 
apparently  deemed  desirable  to  carry  over  into  the  structure  of 
the  Greater  City  local  officers  of  the  Boards  of  Education  of  Yew 
York  and  Brooklyn.  It  survived  all  the  amendments  to  the 


59 


Greater  New  York  charter  and  was  continued  in  the  education 
law  of  1917  as  a  mandatory  institution.  But  this  law  while  pro¬ 
viding  a  general  statute  for  all  cities  of  the  State,  established  a 
Board  of  Superintendents  only  in  the  City  of  New  York  by  the 
common  expedient  of  creating  such  a  hoard  in  “a  city  having  a 
population  of  one  million  or  more.'’  It  is  hard  to  see  why  the 
requirements  of  a  city  with  a  population  of  over  a  million  should 
differ  so  materially  from  those  of  a  city  of  under  a  million.  If  a 
proper  school  administration  requires  a  Board  of  Superintendents 
in  the  one  case,  why  does  it  not  require  a  Board  of  Superintend¬ 
ents  in  the  other  case?  And  if  a  Superintendent  and  a  group 
of  Assistant  Superintendents  can  operate  successfully  in  a  city  of 
less  than  a  million,  why  should  it  he  necessary  for  a  larger  city  to 
place  its  educational  administration  in  the  hands  of  a  hoard  of 
nine  persons  and  to  be  able  to  make  progress  only  when  a  majority 
of  such  hoard  can  he  secured.  The  opportunity  for  discussion  by 
a  board  cannot  always  be  said  to  accelerate  school  business.  The 
President  of  the  Board  of  Education  sought  to  explain  the  delay 
of  his  Board  in  adopting  by-laws  by  saying  that  the  Board  of 
Superintendents  had  been  considering  a  draft  of  by-laws  “I  guess 
for  a  year,  perhaps  for  two  years.”  Examination  of  the  minutes 
of  the  Board  of  Superintendents  shows  the  many  discussions  and 
the  many  references  and  reports  relative  to  matters  which  should 
be  settled  by  prompt  executive  action.  The  records  show  that  one 
of  the  major  contributing  factors  to  the  delay  which  has  charac¬ 
terized  the  provision  of  additional  school  facilities  is  the  fact 
that  the  Board  of  Superintendents  has  to  originate  the  program 
and  approve  the  layout  of  the  new  buildings  contemplated  therein. 

Much  time  could  be  saved  in  the  working  out  of  an  educa¬ 
tional  program,  and  that  the  management  of  the  schools  would 
be  much  more  efficient,  if  the  Board  of  Superintendents  were 
abolished  as  a  board,  and  if  the  Superintendent  of  Schools,  with 
a  staff  of  competent  Assistant  Superintendents,  was  made  the 
agent  of  the  Board  of  Education  in  the  carrying  out  of  educational 
policies. 

S.  Perpetuation  of  the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education, 

School  Census  and  Child  Welfare 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  provision  of  law,  mak¬ 
ing  mandatory  a  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education,  School  Census 
and  Child  Welfare.  The  State  Education  Taw,  passed  in  191 1 . 
did  not  single  cut  this  bureau  for  special  recognition.  It  was 


GO 


left  on  a  parity  with  the  other  administrative  bureaus  of  the  Board, 
subject  to  modification,  abolition  and  consolidation  by  the  Board 
of  Education. 

Chapter  612,  Laws  of  1920,  however,  added  a  new  section  to  the 
State  Education  Law,  placing  the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Educa¬ 
tion  in  the  mandatory  class  with  the  Board  of  Superintendents 
and  the  Board  of  Examiners.  This  amendment  applied  only  to 
the  City  of  New  York  as  it  was  worded  to  affect  “  a  city  having 
a  population  of  one  million  or  more.7’ 

Mandatory  legislation  of  this  character  affecting  only  the 
City  of  Yew  York,  particularly  when  in  the  form  of  amend¬ 
ments  to  general  State  acts,  should  not  be  passed  unless  there 
is  a  compelling  reason  in  its  favor.  It  is  hard  to  believe 
that  any  such  compelling  reason  existed  in  the  case  of  the  statute 
in  question.  If  the  enforcement  of  the  compulsory  education  law, 
in  the  City  of  Yew  York,  requires  the  organization  of  a  Bureau 
of  Compulsory  Education,  the  Board  of  Education  can  be  relied 
upon  to  establish  such  a  bureau,  but  if  the  Board  of  Education 
prefers  to  enforce  the  compulsory  education  law  through  some 
agency  other  than  a  specially  constituted  bureau,  it  should  be 
permitted  to  do  so. 

It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  State  to  enact  a  compulsory  educa¬ 
tion  law  and  to  hold  Boards  of  Education  responsible  for  its 
enforcement.  It  should  be  the  privilege  of  the  Boards  of  Educa¬ 
tion  to  determine  the  machinery  by  which  such  enforcement  is  to 

#y  * 

be  carried  out,  and  the  Board  of  Education  of  Yew  York  should 
have  the  same  privilege  in  this  respect  as  is  enjoyed  by  the  other 
cities  of  the  State. 

9.  Conflict  between  Section  1102  of  the  Charter,  which  was  not 
specifically  repealed,  and  the  Stale  Education  Laiv,  relative 
to  the  disposition  to  be  made  of  the  City’s  share  of  the 
State  school  moneys,  the  former  providing  that  such  money 
be  credited  to  the  City’s  general  fund  for  the  reduction  of 
taxation  and  the  latter  that  it  be  credited  to  the  Board  of 
Education. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  this  matter  under  subdivision  3, 
above.  The  controversv  was  resolved  in  favor  of  the  Board  of 

e J 

Education,  and  at  the  piesent  time,  the  proceeds  of  the  State’s 
apportionment  to  the  City  of  Yew  York  are  credited  to  the  Board 
of  Education.  That  the  amounts  now  involved  are  by  no  means 


61 


inconsiderable  is  shown  by  the  following  table,  giving  the  totals 
apportioned  to  New  York  for  the  calendar  years  1914  to  1922, 
inclusive : 

Amount  Apportioned 


Year  to  the  City 

1914  .  $1,923,025  00 

1915  .  2,115,679'  73 

1916  .  2,220,730  03 

1917  .  2,414,837  16 

1918  .  2,321,191  13 

1919  .  2,700,657  19 

1920  .  5,025,570  17 

1921  .  16,938,023  85 

1922  .  *18,097,534  51 


*  Estimated. 

10.  Increase  from  3  mills  to  If. 9  mills  in  the  amount  which  the 
City  is  required  annually  to  appropriate  for  the  use  of  the 
Board  of  Education. 

The  State’s  policy  of  prescribing  a  certain  minimum  tax  to  be 
levied  for  local  school  purposes  long  antedates  the  creation  of  the 
Greater  Citv. 

The  application  of  this  principle  to  the  present  City,  however, 
was  first  made  in  the  Charter,  which  took  effect  in  1898,  and 
which  prescribed  a  minimum  of  4  mills.  By  Chapter  43,  Laws  of 
1903,  this  was  reduced  to  3  mills,  the  reduction  taking  effect  in 
the  1904  budget,  a  provision  contemporaneous  with  the  increase 
of  nearlv  a  billion  and  a  half  dollars  in  the  assessed  valuation  of 

tj 

New  York  City’s  real  estate,  due  to  a  change  in  the  basis  of 
assessment.  The  figure  remained  3  mills  until  the  State  Law  of 
1917  raised  it  to  4.9  mills. 

The  3  mill  tax  applied  to  the  1903  valuations  yielded,  for  the 
purposes  of  the  1904  budget,  $16,297,250.75,  as  compared  with 
$15,428,190.87,  wdiich  was  yielded  for  the  budget  of  the  preced¬ 
ing  year  by  the  4  mill  tax  on  1902  values,  so  the  decrease  in  rate 
really  meant  an  increase  of  $870,000  in  available  funds. 

The  following  table  shows  the  expenditures  by  the  Board  of 
Education  from  its  current  funds  for  school  purposes  from  1910, 
through  the  first  six  months  of  1921,  and  gives  also  the  1922 


62 


budget  appropriation  from  City  and  State  sources.  It  shows  the 
tremendous  growth  that  has  taken  place  in  the  last  few  years 

in  school  costs. 

Year 

1910  . 

1911  . 

1912  . 

1913  . 

1914  . 

1915  . 

1916  . 

1917  . 

•  1918  . 

1919  . 

1920  . 

1921  (first  6  mos.) . 

1922  . 

*  Including  $18,097,534.51  from  the  State. 

The  first  budget  affected  by  the  law  increasing  the  minimum 
provision  for  school  purposes  to  the  yield  of  a  4.9  mill  tax  was 
that  for  1918,  and  the  amount  appropriated  by  the  City  for  school 
purposes  in  that  budget  was  $42,501,156.04,  the  exact  amount  of 
the  4.9  mill  yield  as  then  computed  and  the  approximate  amount 
required  by  the  Board  of  Education  as  indicated  by  its  expendi¬ 
tures  at  the  time.  It  seems  clear,  therefore,  that  the  legislature 
sought  to  guarantee  to  the  City’s  school  system,  an  income  suffi¬ 
cient  to  meet  its  requirements,  relying  on  increases  in  assessed 
valuation  to  provide  some  money  at  least  for  expansion,  thus 
assuring  the  Board  of  Education  a  reasonable  degree  of  financial 
independence.  The  4.9  mill  yield,  however,  has  not  proved 
wholly  adequate.  The  legislature  in  1,919  and  1920  passed  laws 
increasing  the  statutory  minimums  for  teachers’  salaries.  These 
new  schedules,  when  fully  effective,  increased  the  salaries  of 
teachers  in  New  York  City's  schools  by  about  $30,000,000  a  year. 
According  to  figures  prepared  by  the  Board  of  Education,  the 
total  salary  cost  for  teachers  as  of  December  31,  1919,  was 
$37,625,157,  and  the  cost  as  of  December  31,  1921,  for  the  same 
staff  is  estimated  at  $67,947,108. 


Expenditures. 


$28,456,945 

68 

28,958,179 

29 

33,791,974 

40 

35,481,641 

12 

38,185,495 

90 

39,797,960 

64 

39,708,764 

22 

41,101,074 

41 

43,884,893 

59 

45,490,121 

68 

66,194,668 

04 

44,828,326 

62 

*88,798,546 

81 

63 


In  order  to  lighten  the  financial  burden  imposed  by  these 
mandatory  increases,  the  Legislature  undertook  to  provide  a  part 
of  the  necessary  funds  and  levied  a  direct  tax  for  educational 
purposes  to  supplement  the  local  city  taxes. 

As  shown  above,  the  State  funds  received  by  Hew  York  from 
1914  to  1919,  inclusive,  averaged  annually  about  $2,000,000.  In 
1921,  however,  by  reason  of  this  action  by  the  Legislature,  the 
amount  received  totals  $16,938,023  85,  and  the  estimate  for  1922 
is  $18,097,534.51. 

But  this  is  not  enough  to  offset  the  entire  additional  burden 
in  Hew  York,  and,  as  a  result,  the  schools  are  again  placed  in 
financial  dependence  on  the  city  authorities.  The  City’s  appro¬ 
priation  for  1922  for  school  purposes  is  $70,701,012.30,  whereas 
the  4.9  mill  tax  on  1921  valuations  yields  only  about  $50,000,000. 
The  Board  of  Education  is  therefore  dependent  on  the  City  for 
about  30%  of  its  requirements  for  current  running  expenses,  to 
say  nothing  of  its  requirements  for  new  school  buildings,  altera¬ 
tions  and  the  like.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  situation  is 
no  better  than  it  was  in  1917,  when  the  Board’s  budget  was 
$41,430,447.49,  or  nearly  $16,000,000  in  excess  of  the  mandatory 
3-mill  tax  of  $25,753,057.53. 

A  most  anomalous  situation  is  thus  created.  The  Board  of 
Education,  which  is  recognized  as  an  agent  of  the  State  by  the 
new  Education  Law,  is  at  the  mercy  financially  of  the  local  city 
authorities,  who  have  it  in  their  power  completely  to  wreck  the 
school  system.  That  this  is  a  power  that  may  be  exercised  before 
long  is  evidenced  by  two  facts. 

The  requirements  of  the  Board  of  Education  for  funds  from 
City  sources  as  set  forth  in  the  budget  for  1921  amounted  to 
$77,946,038.77,  but  because,  in  spite  of  a  most  unusual  increase 
in  the  assessed  valuations  for  1921,  the  Board  of  Estimate  found 
that  it  could  not  appropriate  the  full  amount  it  desired  to  for 
city  and  county  purposes  and  remain  within  the  2%  constitutional 
limitation  as  interpreted  by  it,  it  arbitrarily  reduced  the  amount 
appropriated  for  the  Board  of  Education  to  $50,720,880.83, 
leaving  a  deficit  of  $27,225,157.94  to  be  made  up  during  the 
year.  The  action  of  the  Legislature  in  continuing  for  another 
year  the  direct  State  levy  for  teachers’  salaries  made  an  additional 
$7,225,000  available,  reducing  the  deficit  to  $20,000,000. 

The  Board  of  Estimate  undertook  to  finance  this  deficit  by  the 
issue  of  special  revenue  bonds  and  the  transfer  of  available  bal- 


64 


ances  from  other  appropriations,  but  throughout  the  greater  part 
of  1921,  the  Board  of  Education  had  no  assurance,  other  than  the 
statement  of  the  Board  of  Estimate,  that  the  necessary  funds  for 
the  support  of  the  schools  would  be  provided  by  the  city.  This 
first  move  by  the  city  authorities  can  he  summarized  as  an  arbi¬ 
trary  refusal  to  appropriate  in  the  annual  budget  a  sufficient  sum 
for  school  purposes,  coupled  with  the  undertaking  to  make  up  the 
deficit  from  other  city  sources  during  the  year. 

The  second  fact  is  of  more  recent  occurrence  and  it  may  be 
summarized  as  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  city  authorities  arbi¬ 
trarily  to  reduce  the  budget  appropriations  for  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  below  requirements  and  to  deny  responsibility  for  the 
deficit,  passing  it  along  to  the  State.  This  is  evidenced  by  a  com¬ 
munication  sent  by  the  Comptroller  to  the  Board  of  Aldermen, 
on  December  2,  1921,  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  prob¬ 
able  tax  rate  for  city  and  county  purposes  in  two  of  the  five 
counties  would  exceed  2%,  and  that  in  view  of  the  constitutional 
provisions,  it  would  he  safer  to  reduce  the  budget  so  as  to  bring 
the  rates  below  2%.  lie  recommended  that  this  reduction  be 
effected  by  taking  $10,000,000  away  from  the  appropriations 
made  for  the  Board  of  Education,  saying: 

“Education  is  a  State  function,  and  because  it  was  a  State 
function  the  legislature  increased  teachers'  salaries  in  the 
City  of  New  York  at  the  rate  of  $31,000,000  per  year,  hut 
when  it  came  to  providing  the  means  wherewith  to  meet  this 
increased  outlay,  the  legislature  did  not  consider  that  educa¬ 
tion  was  a  State  function.  It  passed  this  liability  on  to  the 
City  of  New  York,  and,  in  order  that  a  show  of  economy 
might  be  made  in  the  State’s  appropriation  hills,  the  amount 
provided  to  aid  the  City  of  New  York  to  carry  this  increased 
budget  was  less  than  half  of  the  sum  required. 

“Unless  the  State  is  to  he  faithless  to  the  cause  of  educa¬ 
tion,  the  legislature  can  do  no  less  than  provide  the  necessary 
moneys  to  sustain  the  activities  in  the  manner  that  it  has 
required.” 

The  significance  of  this  is  not  so  much  the  speciousness  of  the 
argument  as  the  fact  that  the  exigencies  of  municipal  finance  have 
led  the  city  authorities  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude  toward  the 
city  schools.  The  Board  of  Aldermen  wisely  rejected  the  Comp¬ 
troller’s  recommendation,  hut  next  year,  it  may  very  well  be  that 
the  Board  of  Estimate,  acting  at  the  Comptroller’s  instance,  may 


65 


refuse  to  appropriate  sufficient  funds  for  the  schools,  and,  as  the 
Board  of  Aldermen  has  no  power  to  increase  appropriations, 
there  would  be  no  means  for  compelling  the  City  to  make  the 
necessary  appropriation,  so  long  as  the  statutory  minimum  of  4.9 
mills  is  provided. 

In  connection  with  the  Comptroller’s  recommendation,  how¬ 
ever,  mention  should  be  made  of  the  fact  that  the  Mayor  testified 
that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  increased  salaries  for  teachers,  con¬ 
cerning  which  the  Comptroller  complains,  that  the  city’s  finan¬ 
cial  condition  was  and  is  such  that  it  could  not  possibly  provide 
the  money  for  these  increases  had  the  legislature  not  come  to  its 
aid  by  imposing  a  State  tax  for  the  purpose  and  that  the  amount 
to  be  received  by  the  city  during  1922,  from  State  school  moneys 
is  estimated  at  about  $4,000,000  more  than  the  amount  of  the 
direct  State  tax  which  the  city  has  had  to  include  in  the  1922 
budget,  so  that  the  city  gets  from  the  State  more  than  it  pays  by 
about  $4,000,000. 

It  seems  highly  desirable,  therefore,  that  the  Legislature  take 
the  necessary  steps  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  City  to  starve 
the  schools  at  will.  In  doing  so,  however,  regard  should  be  had, 
not  only  to  the  current  running  expenses  as  reflected  in  the  appro¬ 
priations  to  the  general  and  special  school  funds,  but  also  to  the 
requirements  for  new  school  accommodations.  Only  half  of  the 
problem  would  be  solved  if  the  Board  of  Education  were  depend¬ 
ent  on  the  City  for  funds  for  new  buildings,  because  there  is  no 
more  reason  to  assume  that  the  City,  when  confronted  by  the  con¬ 
stitutional  debt  limit,  would  treat  the  schools  any  more  gener¬ 
ously  than  when  confronted  with  the  constitutional  limit  on  tax¬ 
ing  power. 

The  City's  appropriation  for  the  Board  of  Education  in  the 
1922  budget  of  $70,701,012.30  represents  about  7  mills  on  the 
1921  valuation  of  about  ten  billions.  An  increase  in  the  manda¬ 
tory  minimum  from  4.9  mills  to  7  mills  would  therefore  insure 
sufficient  funds  to  conduct  the  schools  at  the  present  rates  of 
expenditure,  provided  the  State  continues  its  distribution  of  school 
moneys  in  the  same  amount  as  at  present.  If,  in  addition,  the 
equivalent  of  another  mill  or  fraction  thereof  were  set  aside  by 
statute  for  new  school  projects,  to  be  provided  by  taxation  or  bond 
issue,  the  Board  of  Education  would  have  the  assurance  of  a  defi¬ 
nite  sum  annually  for  such  purposes. 


> 


GG 


The  total  expenditure  from  1910  to  the  middle  of  1921  for  new 
buildings  and  sites  was  $46,092,839.8.8,  making  an  average 
annual  expenditure  of  $4,008,073.03  during  this  period.  This 
amount  has  demonstrably  been  insufficient  to  keep  pace  with  the 
growing  requirements  of  the  City  and  it  should  not  be  a  criterion 
in  determining  the  funds  to  be  made  available  by  the  City  in  the 
future  for  such  purposes.  On  the  other  hand,  the  City’s  financial 
condition  is  such  that  it  cannot  be  expected  to  make  up  at  once  the 
deficiencies  of  prior  years  in  school  construction.  The  Board  of 
Education  could  easily  and  advantageously  spend  many  more 
millions  than  the  City  could  furnish.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
to  effect  a  compromise  based  on  the  City’s  financial  ability  and  the 
requirements  of  the  schools  and  adequate  to  give  the  Board  of 
Education  the  necessary  financial  independence. 

11.  The  inclusion  within  the  State’s  educational  system,  of  City 
Boards  of  Education,  including  the  Board  of  Education 
of  the  City  of  New  York  and  the  subordination  of  the 
municipal  authorities  to  the  State  in  matters  of  school 
administration. 

The  foregoing  discussion  demonstrates  that  the  apparent  at¬ 
tempt  by  the  newr  State  Law  of  1917,  to  secure  this  change  in  the 
relationship  between  the  City,  the  Board  of  Education  and  the 
State,  was  not  successful.  The  present  division  of  responsibility, 
while  differing  from  the  preceding  division  of  responsibility,  is 
none  the  less  embarrassing  and  is  not  conducive  to  the  efficient 
administration  of  the  schools.  The  history  of  public  education  in 
Xew  York  State  shows  that  the  State  has  increasingly  concerned 
itself  with  the  education  of  its  children.  Generally  speaking, 
however,  its  concern  has  been  to  see  to  it  that  the  local  authorities 
fulfilled  their  responsibilities.  The  details  of  school  administra¬ 
tion  were  left  to  communities,  while  the  State  prescribed  general 
requirements,  supervised  the  carrying  out  of  these  requirements, 
appropriated  money  to  help  meet  these  requirements  and  passed 
laws  which  sought  to  guarantee  a  proper  education  to  its  future 
citizens.  Experience  seems  to  show  that  this  is  a  wise  position 
for  the  State.  It  cannot  successfully  and  should  not  centralize  in 
its  own  hands  the  administrative  control  of  local  schools.  It  can, 
however,  exercise  general  supervision,  establish  minimum  require¬ 
ments,  set  up  local  agencies  to  administer  the  affairs  of  local 
schools,  and  see  to  it  that  these  agencies  are  not  interfered  with 


67 


in  the  performance  of  their  duty.  Education  is  not  a  State  func¬ 
tion,  it  is  a  State  responsibility.  The  guaranteeing  that  every 
child  in  every  community  shall  have  an  opportunity  for  education, 
however,  is  a  State  function  and  so  is  the  exercise  of  compulsion 
on  local  communities  to  provide  adequate  educational  facilities. 

The  State  can  enunciate  that  principle  and  it  can  establish  in 
JSTew  York  City  a  Board  of  Education  with  complete  financial 
independence,  subject  to  restrictions  imposed  by  the  State  and  the 
State  only.  The  City  can  he  compelled  to  furnish  the  necessary 
funds,  hut  in  the  interests  of  the  taxpayer  these  funds  must  be 
provided  out  of  the  2  per  cent  tax  which  the  City  may,  under  the 
constitution,  levy  for  city  and  county  purposes. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION  IN  THE 
STATE  AND  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK  PRIOR  TO  1897  * 


Historical  Development  of  the  Educational  Section  of 

the  State  Constitution 

Article  IX,  section  1  of  tlie  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New 
York  reads  as  follows: 

“  The  Legislature  shall  provide  for  the  maintenance  and 
support  of  a  system  of  free  common  schools,  wherein  all  the 
children  of  this  State  may  he  educated.7’ 

This  section  was  added  to  the  Constitution  by  the  Constitu¬ 
tional  Convention  of  1894  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Education  which  reported  an  educational  article  of 
which  the  foregoing  was  the  first  section.  The  Committee’s  report 
contained  the  following  statement: 

“  The  present  Constitution  is  silent  upon  the  vital  point 
of  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  a  system  of  free 
common  schools.  It  may  be  urged  that  no  imagination  can 
picture  this  State  refusing  to  provide  education  for  its 
children,  and  for  this  reason  the  declaration  which  your  com¬ 
mittee  have  reported  in  section  1  might,  no  doubt,  he  omitted 
without  endangering  the  stability  of  our  present  system  of 
education.  But  the  same  reasoning  would  apply  to  many 
other  matters  though  fundamental ;  and  it  is  a  significant  fact 
that  within  the  last  half  centurv  of  constitutional  revision 
no  other  State  of  the  Union  has  considered  it  superfluous  or 
unwise  to  make  such  an  affirmation  in  its  fundamental  law. 


•Most  of  the  historical  material  presented  here  has  been  taken  from  Lin¬ 
coln’s  “  Constitutional  History  of  New  York,”  vol.  Ill,  pp.  475-580,  and  from 
Palmer’s  “  The  New  York  Public  School.”  In  many  instances  sentences  have 
been  borrowed  bodily,  and,  generally  speaking,  there  has  been  little  more  than 
summarization  and  rearrangement  of  the  material  collected  by  these  authors. 
Material  has  also  been  taken  from  the  School  Inquiry  Report  published  in 
1913  by  the  Board  of  Estimate,  especially  from  vol.  Ill,  pp.  45-108. 

[68] 


G9 


Your  committee,  therefore,  recommends  the  adoption  of 
section  1  as  an  explicit  direction  to  the  legislature  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  a  system  of  free  common  schools  wherein  all  the 
children  of  this  state  may  be  educated.  This  requires,  not 
simply  schools,  but  a  system;  not  merely  that  they  shall  he 
common,  but  free,  and  not  only  that  they  shall  he  numerous, 
but  that  they  shall  be  sufficient  in  number,  so  that  all  the 
children  of  the  state  may,  unless  otherwise  provided  for, 
receive  in  them  their  education.  Yo  desire  to  confine  the 
new  Constitution  to  the  narrowest  possible  limits  of  space 
should  prevent  the  adoption  of  an  enactment  declaring  in  the 
strongest  possible  terms  the  interest  of  the  state  in  its  com¬ 
mon  schools;.  Whatever  may  have  been  their  value  hereto¬ 
fore,  and  language  has  been  strained  to  the  utmost  in  apply¬ 
ing  to  them  terms  of  praise,  their  importance  for  the  future 
•  cannot  he  overestimated.  The  public  problems  confronting 
the  rising  generation  will  demand  accurate  knowledge  and 
the  highest  development  of  reasoning  power  more  than  ever 
before ;  and,  in  view  of  the  state’s  policy  as  to  higher  educa¬ 
tion,  to  which  reference  will  presently  be  made,  too  much 
attention  cannot  be  called  to  the  fact  that  the  highest  leader¬ 
ship  is  impossible  without  intelligent  following,  and  that 
the  foundation  of  our  educational  system  must  he  permanent, 
broad,  and  firm  if  the  superstructure  is  to  be  of  real  value.” 

The  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894  found  an  educational 
system  in  two  parts,  one  culminating  in  the  University  Law  cf 
1892  and  the  other  in  the  Common  School  Law  of  1894.  In 
addition,  there  were  numerous  independent  statutes  relating  to 
both  departments  of  education.  The  Convention  combined  both 
branches  in  one  educational  article  and  the  state  electorate  by 
adopting  the  revised  constitution  definitely  declared  that  ele¬ 
mentary,  secondary  and  higher  education  should  be  maintained 
at  public  expense  within  limitations  prescribed  by  the  State 
Legislature.  By  this  action  there  was  incorporated  in  the  funda¬ 
mental  law  of  the  State  a  policy  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  had 
existed  for  many  years  through  legislation.  The  constitutional 
provision  unified  the  two  systems  above  referred  to,  but  both 
systems  were  prior  to  1894  subject  to  State  control. 

The  following  brief  sketch  of  the  development  of  a  public  edu¬ 
cational  policy  in  the  State  of  Yew  York  shows  the  gradual  forma¬ 
tion  of  a  new  conception  that  public  education  was  a  vital  con¬ 
cern  of  the  State. 


70 


Dutch  Colonial  Period 

The  Dutch  were  firm  believers  in  education  and  carried  to  the 
new  world  their  determination  to  provide  for  the  instruction  of 
their  youth.  An  official  school  and  school  master  were  provided 
in  New  Amsterdam  as  early  as  1633.  During  the  Dutch  control 
of  New  York  the  expense  of  maintaining  the  schools  was  some¬ 
times  paid  in  paid  from  the  treasury  of  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company,  sometimes  from  excise  moneys,  sometimes,  apparently, 
by  general  tax  and,  in  addition,  teachers  derived  a  part  of  their 
income  from  direct  payment  by  pupils.  Religious  and  secular 
instruction  were  combined  in  the  same  course  and  the  same  per¬ 
son  was  often  both  minister  and  school  master.  The  Dutch  West 
India  Company  began  the  administration  of  the  colony  which  it 
was  permitted  to  establish  in  America  by  invoking  the  direct  aid 
of  the  minister  and  the  school  master.  A  union  of  church  and 
state  was  not  then  deemed  objectionable.  Rut  while  the  govern¬ 
ment  through  the  church  and  sometimes  by  direct  taxation 
encouraged  the  formation  of  schools,  it  did  not  consider  itself 
responsible  for  the  development  of  a  consistent  and  comprehensive 
educational  policy  for  the  children  of  the  colony. 

English  Colonial  Period ,  1661+  —  1776 

The  transfer  of  New  York  from  Dutch  to  English  control  in 
1664  had  little  immediate  effect  on  the  educational  policy  of  the 
colony.  The  Dutch  policy  was  not  interrupted,  but  as  the  Eng¬ 
lish  apparently  did  not  regard  education  as  an  essential  subject 
of  public  administration,  little  was  done  to  foster  schools  at  pub¬ 
lic  expense.  English  teachers  were  licensed  to  teach  schools,  but 
usually  without  public  aid.  The  colonial  government  acting 
under  orders  from  the  crown  tried  to  keep  the  control  of  educa¬ 
tion  as  a  prerogative  of  the  Church  of  England,  and,  accord¬ 
ingly,  under  the  instructions  of  colonial  governors  school  masters 
were  permitted  to  teach  only  if  licensed,  first  by  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  and  later  in  the  history  of  the  colony  by  the  Bishop 
of  London.  During  the  first  few  years  of  English  jurisdiction 
school  masters  were  also  required  to  obtain  a  civil  license  from 
the  governor,  but  this  practice  later  fell  into  disuse.  Education, 
while  not  discouraged  by  the  government,  was  left  largely  to 
private  enterprise,  but  under  public  control,  and  the  schools  were 
maintained  either  directly  or  indirectly  by  private  contributions 
including  the  direct  payment  of  tuition  and  the  funds  admin- 


71 


istered  by  some  society  organized  for  that  or  similar  purposes. 
The  English  “  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  For¬ 
eign  Parts/7  for  example,  carried  on  an  extensive  educational 
work  in  the  colony,  establishing  schools,  appointing  teachers  and 
often  supporting  them  out  of  its  own  treasury.  But  while  the 
schools  were,  during  the  latter  half  of  the  English  Colonial  period 
under  the  general  care  and  supervision  of  this  Society,  the  gov¬ 
ernment  kept  its  hand  on  the  school  system  directly  and  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  church  by  the  requirements  as  to  the 
licensing  of  teachers  referred  to  above,  and  not  by  direct  legis¬ 
lation  of  a  general  character. 

Only  two  statutes  were  enacted  by  the  English  Colonial  gov¬ 
ernment  of  ISTew  York  relating  directly  to  education  and  neither 
of  these  disclosed  any  intention  to  establish  a  public  school  sys¬ 
tem.  The  first  was  passed  in  1702  and  recited  that  the  munici¬ 
pal  authorities  of  New  York  had  represented  to  the  general 
assembly  the  importance  of  establishing  in  that  city  a  free  school. 
The  assembly  thereupon  made  provision  for  a  grammar  school 
and  directed  that  an  annual  tax  of  £50  be  raised  to  maintain  the 
school.  The  act  was  to  continue  in  force  seven  years.  It  was  not 
then  extended.  The  second  statute  was  passed  in  1732  and 
authorized  a  school  in  New  York  for  the  teaching  of  Latin, 
Greek  and  mathematics.  This  school  was  to  be  free,  its  expenses 
being  paid  from  moneys  received  from  licenses  to  hawkers  and 
peddlers.  The  act  was  limited  to  five  years.  It  was  then  con¬ 
tinued  for  another  year,  but  was  not  again  renewed.  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  last  attempt  to  establish  public  schools  during 
the  Colonial  period. 

Education  under  the  First  Constitution ,  17 77  —  1821 

Education  was  given  no  place  in  the  first  constitution.  The 
Legislature  was,  therefore,  left  free  to  act  as  it  saw  fit  with 
respect  to  schools.  The  Revolutionary  War,  of  course,  absorbed 
much  if  not  most  of  the  Legislature’s  energy  and  the  first  definite 
recognition  of  school  needs  was  tacked  on  to  an  act  providing  for 
the  raising  of  two  regiments  for  volunteer  service  and  for  boun¬ 
ties  of  public  land  to  encourage  enlistments.  By  this  act  (Chap¬ 
ter  32,  Laws  of  1781)  the  State  reserved  in  each  township  five 
hundred  acres  of  public  land  for  the  support  of  the  gospel  and 
three  hundred  and  sixty  acres  for  the  use  of  the  school.  The 
policy  of  appropriating  public  lands  for  these  purposes  was  con¬ 
tinued  by  subsequent  legislation,  and,  according  to  a  report  by 


72 


the  Superintendent  of  Public  Schools  in  1839,  there  had  been 
thus  reserved  up  to  that  time  as  gospel  and  school  lands  47,620 
acres.  This  policy  obviously  was  not  applicable  to  all  parts  of  the 
State  and  necessarily  could  have  only  a  limited  effect.  It  was 
only  an  incident  in  the  State’s  educational  development. 

What  is  said  to  be  the  earliest  official  declaration  of  a  state 
educational  program  is  found  in  a  statement  by  Governor  George 
Clinton  to  the  special  session  of  the  Legislature  called  in  1782 
to  devise  means  for  more  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  He 
is  quoted  as  having  said: 

“  *  *  *  it  is  the  peculiar  duty  of  a  government  of  a 

free  state  where  the  highest  employments  are  open  to  citi¬ 
zens  of  every  rank  to  endeavor  by  the  establishment  of 
schools  and  seminaries  to  diffuse  that  degree  of  literature 
which  is  necessary  to  the  due  discharge  of  public  trusts. 
You  must  be  sensible  that  the  war  has  occasioned  a  chasm 
in  education  extremely  injurious  to1  the  rising  generation, 
and  this  affords  an  additional  consideration  for  extending 
our  earliest  care  to  their  instruction.” 

In  1784  the  Governor  repeated  his  views  and  the  Legislature 
passed  an  act  to  establish  a  university  under  a  Board  of  Regents. 
If  this  universitv  had  been  erected  on  a  broad  foundation  with- 
out  reference  to  any  particular  institution  then  existing,  it  could 
have  supervised  all  education,  but  the  intervention  of  Kings  Col¬ 
lege  brought  about  amendments  which  concentrated  on  Columbia 
College  (the  later  name  for  King’s  College)  the  energies  of 
friends  of  education  in  the  State.  This  law  of  1784  was 
amended,  materially  altered  in  1787  and  in  the  latter  form  was 
the  basis  of  the  University  Law  of  1892. 

The  Committee  of  Regents  which  recommended  the  modifica¬ 
tion  of  1787  in  the  University  Law  made  the  first  direct  reference 
to  public  common  schools  as  such,  stating  that: 

“  They  feel  themselves  bound  in  faithfulness  to  add  that 
the  erecting  of  public  schools  for  teaching  reading,  writing 
and  arithmetic  is  an  object  of  very  great  importance  which 
ought  not  to  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  private  men,  but  be 
promoted  by  public  authority.” 

The  amended  law,  however,  contained  no  provision  for  the 
organization  of  primary  education. 

The  first  free  common  school  established  by  statute  in  a  settled 

«/ 

portion  of  the  State  was  provided  for  by  Chapter  41  of  the  Laws 


of  1791.  The  people  of  Clermont  asked  authorization  from  the 
Legislature  for  the  use  for  school  purposes  of  the  surplus  of  excise 
moneys  not  needed  for  the  support  of  the  poor,  and  this  authority 
was  granted  by  the  above-mentioned  act. 

In  1793,  1794  and  1795  the  Regents  repeated  their  recom¬ 
mendation  for  the  establishment  of  public  schools  for  the  teaching 
of  reading,  writing  and  arithmetic,  and  the  Legislature  in  1795 
passed  a  Common  School  Law  (Chapter  75)  which  appropriated 
£20,000  annually  for  five  years  and  required  each  city  and  county 
to  raise  by  tax  a  sum  equal  to  one-half  the  amount  apportioned 
to  it  by  the  State.  These  two  sums  constituted  the  local  school 
fund.  There  was  no  rate  bill.  This  law  expired  in  1800  and  was 
not  renewed.  The  Legislature  of  1801,  however,  provided  for  a 
lottery  to  raise  $100,000,  one-half  of  which  was  to  be  used  by  the 
Regents  and  the  other  half  to  be  used  for  the  support  of  the  com¬ 
mon  schools  as  the  Legislature  might  direct. 

In  1802,  1803  and  1804  the  Governor  recommended  again  that 
the  Legislature  continue  the  svstem  of  common  schools.  In  1805 
Governor  Lewis  sent  a  special  message  to  the  Legislature  urging 
the  adoption  of  a  liberal  policy  toward  education  and  recom¬ 
mending  that  1,500,000  acres  of  unappropriated  land  then  owned 
by  the  State  be  devoted  to  educational  purposes;  the  funds  real¬ 
ized  from  the  sale  thereof  to  be  placed  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Regents ;  the  interest  to  be  used  for  the  support  of  colleges,  com¬ 
mon  schools  and  “  perhaps  of  academies.”  This  plan,  if  adopted, 
would  have  unified  the  State’s  educational  svstem  under  one  head, 
the  Regents.  The  Legislature,  however,  included  in  the  new  law 
only  that  part  of  the  plan  relating  to  a  common  school  fund  and 
set  aside  only  500,000  acres  of  unoccupied  land  for  establishing 
the  common  school  fund.  The  creation  of  this  fund  was,  appar¬ 
ently,  the  only  result  of  Governor  Lewis’  plan  to  establish  a  gen¬ 
eral  system  of  education. 

In  1810,  and  again  in  1811,  Governor  Tompkins  urged  legis¬ 
lative  action  for  popular  education,  and  in  the  latter  year  the 
Legislature  appointed  a  commission  to  study  the  subject  and 
report.  The  report  was  submitted  in  1812  accompanied  by  a  bill 
which,  with  modifications,  became  Chapter  242.  This  law  pro¬ 
vided  for  a  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  for  the  distribu¬ 
tion  of  the  interest  of  the  common  school  fund ;  authorized  the 
election  of  town  commissioners  and  inspectors  of  schools ;  re¬ 
quired  teachers  to  be  examined  and  licensed  by  the  inspectors; 
provided  for  school  districts  in  towns,  and  required  a  local  tax 


74 


for  school  moneys  in  addition  to  the  fund  distributed  by  the 
State  with  the  limitation  that  the  offer  of  State  aid  must  have 
been  accepted  at  a  town  meeting,  in  which  case  a  sum  equal  to 
the  State  apportionment  was  to  be  raised  by  a  town  tax.  The 
town  might  also  raise  an  additional  sum.  These  amounts  con¬ 
stituted  the  local  school  fund.  There  was  no  rate  bill.  This  act 
was  revised  and  repealed  in  1814.  By  the  new  act  the  towns 
were  required  to  raise  by  tax  an  amount  at  least  as  great  as  the 
amount  of  the  State  apportionment,  and  provision  was  made  for 
the  rate  bill  which  was  used  to  collect  money  for  teachers’  salaries 
in  excess  of  the  amount  of  the  local  school  fund.  The  rate  bill 
was  continued  in  the  revision  effected  by  Chapter  161,  Laws  of 
1819.  The  office  of  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools  was 
abolished  by  Chapter  240,  Laws  of  1821,  and  his  functions  trans¬ 
ferred  to  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 

Education  under  the  Seco7id  C onstituiion,  1822-181+6 

The  Constitutional  Convention  of  1821  gave  but  little  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  subject  of  education.  The  common  school  fund  was 
protected  and  was  made  perpetual.  Its  foundation  was  enlarged 
to  include  the  proceeds  of  all  the  State  lands  not  otherwise  appro¬ 
priated.  Except  for  these  provisions,  however,  the  new  constitu¬ 
tion  contained  no  educational  material,  but  during  its  life  con¬ 
siderable  legislation  on  this  subject  was  enacted,  much  of  it  hav¬ 
ing  to  do  with  the  training  of  teachers.  By  Chapter  133  of  the 
Laws  of  1843  the  Legislature  abolished  the  offices  of  Commis¬ 
sioner  and  Inspector  of  Common  Schools  and  created  the  office 
of  Town  Superintendent  of  Schools,  to  be  chosen  annually  by  the 
people.  The  same  law  authorized  the  State  Superintendent  to 
issue  teachers’  certificates  which  could  be  used  anywhere  in  the 
State  and  were  valid  until  revoked.  This  act  completed  the 
policy  of  supervision  by  Superintendents,  including  the  State 
Superintendent,  Deputy  County  Superintendents  and  Town 
Superintendents. 

Prior  to  1846  several  separate  free  school  laws  were  enacted. 
But,  as  a  general  rule,  parents  were  required  to  pay  a  separate 
and  additional  tax  (rate  hill)  for  the  instruction  of  their  children, 
if  the  public  money  was  not  sufficient  to  pay  teachers’  wages. 
Poor  people  might,  however,  be  relieved  from  this  additional 
charge. 

A  resolution  was  offered  in  the  Assembly  of  1846  requesting 
the  Committee  on  Colleges,  Academies  and  Common  Schools  to 


75 


t  report  on  the  expediency  of  providing  free  schools  in  all  cities 
and  also  in  all  incorporated  villages  with  a  population  of  10.000 
or  more.  The  Committee  reported  itself  in  favor  of  the  idea 
but  advised  postponing  action  until  the  Constitutional  Convention 
then  about  to  meet  could  consider  the  matter. 

Education  under  the  Third  Constitution,  18^1-189^ 

The  Constitutional  Convention  in  1846  considered  the  matter 
of  free  public  education  and  on  the  day  before  adjournment 
adopted  two  sections  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  separately  and 
not  as  part  of  the  Constitution.  One  section  read: 

“  The  Legislature  shall  provide  for  the  free  education  and 
instruction  of  everv  child  in  the  state  in  the  common  schools 
now  established  or  which  hereafter  shall  be  established 
therein.” 

The  other  section  related  to  taxation.  These  two  sections,  how¬ 
ever,  were  reconsidered  by  the  Convention  later  in  the  same  day 
and  the  earlier  action  reversed.  The  Convention  struck  out  the 
free  school  provisions  by  a  vote  of  61  to  27. 

Numerous  petitions  were  submitted  to  the  Legislature  of  1849 
for  a  general  free  school  law.  The  Legislature  responded  and 
y  enacted  a  law  providing  that: 

u  Common  schools  in  the  several  school  districts  in  this 
state  shall  be  free  to  all  persons  residing  in  the  district  over 
five  and  under  twenty-one  years  of  age  ”  and  that  “  free  and 
gratuitous  education  shall  be  given  to  each  pupil  ”  in  all 
public  schools. 

A  free  school  law  was  such  a  radical  departure  from  the  exist¬ 
ing  policy  of  the  State,  however,  that  the  Legislature  decided  to 
submit  this  new  law  to  the  electors.  It  was  approved  by  them  at 
the  November,  1849,  election  by  a  vote  of  249,872  to  91,951  and 
became  effective  January  1,  1850.  The  constitutionality  of  the 
law  was  attacked  because  of  the  provision  requiring  its  submis¬ 
sion  to  the  people  before  becoming  effective,  and  in  1853  the 
Court  of  Appeals  held  it  to  be  unconstitutional  (8  N.  Y.  483). 

This  decision  had  little  practical  effect  because  the  law  had  been 
,  repealed  in  1851,  many  complaints  having  been  made  of  the 
oppressive  tax  burden  on  account  of  free  schools.  Chapter  151 
of  the  Laws  of  1851  was  enacted  to  provide  relief  and  restored 
>  the  rate  bill.  In  1855  Governor  Clark  recommended  that  the  rate 
bill  be  abolished  and  that  schools  be  made  entirely  free,  but  the 


76 


revised  school  law  of  1864  (Chapter  555)  continued  it  in  force. 
In  1867  Governor  Fenton  made  a  similar  recommendation  and 
the  Legislature  by  Chapter  406  did  abolish  all  rate  hills,  thus 
making  the  schools  really  free. 

In  1853  (Chapter  433)  the  Legislature  sought  to  encourage 
the  establishment  of  schools  by  providing  for  the  union  of  two  or 
more  districts,  or  parts  of  districts,  in  one  school  under  the  imme¬ 
diate  supervision  of  a  Board  of  Education.  These  union  free 
schools,  while  in  their  general  character  common  schools,  might 
have  an  academic  department.  Thus  there  was  a  union  of  common 
and  academic  education  in  the  same  school.  The  academic  de¬ 
partment  was,  however,  under  the  general  supervision  of  the 
Regents.  In  other  respects  the  Board  of  Education  had  the 
“  superintendence,  management  and  control  of  the  school.”  This 
law  did  not  specifically  give  the  Superintendent  of  Common 
Schools  any  supervision  over  a  union  school  but  laws  relating  to 
the  powers  and  duties  of  trustees  of  common  schools  were  made 
applicable  to  boards  of  education. 

The  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  whose  office  was  cre¬ 
ated  by  Chapter  97  of  the  Laws  of  1854  was  practically  the  suc¬ 
cessor  of  the  former  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools.  He 
was  specifically  required  to 

“  visit  as  often  as  may  he  practicable  such  and  so  many  of 
the  common  schools,  academies  and  other  literarv  institu- 
tions  of  the  state  as  he  may  deem  expedient ;  to  inquire  into 
the  course  of  instruction,  management  and  discipline  of  such 
institutions,  and  to  report  the  results  of  such  visitation  and 
inspection  annually  to  the  Legislature,  with  such  recom¬ 
mendations  and  suggestions  as  he  may  deem  suitable.” 

In  1856  Governor  Clark  recommended  the  abolition  of  the 

office  of  Town  Superintendent  and  the  creation  of  local  Boards  of 

Education.  He  also  urged  the  more  thorough  supervision  of 

schools,  and  the  Legislature,  by  Chapter  179  of  the  Laws  of  1856, 

created  the  office  of  School  Commissioner  in  each  assemblv  dis- 

< / 

trict  except  in  the  counties  of  Hew  York  and  Kings,  to  whom  was 
given  the  general  power  of  visitation,  inspection  and  supervision 
of  common  schools  in  his  district.  He  was  also  authorized  to 
grant  teachers’  licenses  and  to  hold  teachers’  institutes  subject  ta 
rules  prescribed  by  the  state  superintendent.  The  same  act  abol¬ 
ished  the  office  of  Town  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools. 


77 


By  Chapter  555  of  the  Laws  of  1864  the  general  acts  relating 
to  public  instruction  were  revised  and  consolidated.  Union 
schools  were  made  subject  to  the  visitation  of  the  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction,  who  was  also  made  responsible  for  the 
u  general  supervision  of  its  board  of  education  and  their  man¬ 
agement  and  the  conduct  of  all  its  departments  of  instruction/" 
The  Superintendent  was  also  empowered  to  remove  members  of 
a  Board  of  Education.  As  a  result,  a  double  supervision  was 
established  for  union  schools  with  academic  departments,  the 
Superintendent  being  one  of  the  instruments  and  the  Board  of 
Regents  the  other.  And,  similarly,  there  was  a  double  inspection 
and  distribution  of  State  funds.  This  duplication  of  function 
continued  until  the  unification  act  of  1904. 

The  Convention  of  1867  included  a  free  school  provision  in 
its  draft  of  the  Constitution.  The  Commission  of  1872  con¬ 
sidered  but  did  not  adopt  propositions  relating  to  compulsory 
education  and  free  common  school  instruction.  The  Legislature 
of  1876  passed  a  free  school  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  but 
it  was  not  agreed  to  by  a  subsequent  Legislature  and  was  not, 
therefore,  submitted  to  the  people  for  acceptance.  ISTot  until 
1894  were  effective  steps  taken  toward  the  inclusion  of  a  free 
education  section  in  the  state  constitution.  The  constitutional 
convention  of  that  year  adopted  the  section  quoted  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  this  sketch  and  that  section  has  remained  ever  since  as 
a  part  of  the  state  constitution. 

Summary 

The  foregoing  summary  of  the  development  of  constitutional 
free  public  education  in  Kew  York  shows  clearly  that  the  pro¬ 
cess  was  not  a  consistent  one.  The  present  system  is  an  outgrowth 
of  a  varietv  of  conflictina:  ideas  and  tendencies.  Most  of  the 

*j  o 

progress  has  been  of  comparatively  recent  years. 

The  Dutch  Colonists  had  a  lively  regard  for  the  value  of  edu¬ 
cation,  but  it  was  not  free  state  education.  It  was  church  educa¬ 
tion  sanctioned  and  encouraged  by  the  state.  The  English 
Colonists  had  no  conception  of  free  public  education.  There  were 
no  public  schools  at  the  end  of  the  colonial  period.  The  general 
policy  was  to  leave  education  to  individual  effort.  The  govern¬ 
ment  felt  itself  absolved  from  responsibility.  If  the  people 
desired  schools  they  could  have  them  by  paying  for  them.  The 
church  would  license  proper  teachers  and  the  schools  could  be 
supported  by  private  contributions. 


78 


This  was  the  educational  inheritance  of  the  new  State.  The 
first  education  law  passed  by  the  new  state  government  had 
to  do  with  the  establishment  of  a  state  university.  There  was 
no  recognition  of  any  need  for  state  common  schools.  The  evi¬ 
dent  purpose  of  the  first  University  Law  was  to  establish  a  private 
educational  institution  and  not  to  institute  a  comprehensive  sys¬ 
tem  of  public  education.  The  differentiation  between  the  two 
ideas  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when  the  Legislature  passed  the 
first  Common  School  Law  (1795)  the  Regents  of  the  state  uni¬ 
versity  were  not  made  the  instrumentality  for  administering  the 
new  law.  The  university  had  to  do  with  private  educational 
institutions  while  the  state  government  was  then  about  to  try 
an  experiment  in  public  education.  The  Legislature,  accordingly, 
left  the  university  at  one  side  and  used  means  with  which  they 
were  familiar,  namely,  the  township  governments.  Township 
government  was  a  colonial  inheritance  and  was  recognized  and 
per petu cited  by  the  first  constitution  of  the  State,  which  guar¬ 
anteed  to  the  people  of  the  town  the  right  to  elect  their  own  officers. 
The  towns  themselves  had  an  organized  government  and  it  was 
natural  that  the  State  should  resort  to  these  local  governments 
for  the  machinery  to  carry  out  the  new  plan.  It  is  also  probable 
that  the  Xew  England  township  school  policy  had  an  influence 
in  shaping  the  Xew  York  statute.  Massachusetts  in  1789,  six 
years  before  the  Xew  York  law,  had  enacted  a  common  school 
law  by  which  each  town  was  directed  to  maintain  public  schools. 
There  wTas  no  central  administration  at  all,  the  whole  subject, 
including  taxation,  being  committed  to  the  people  of  the  town, 
who  might  subdivide  the  town  into  school  districts.  The  Xew 
York  law  was  constructed  on  this  model.  The  town  was  made 
the  basis  of  school  administration  and  taxation,  and  local  officers 
were  made  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  The 
Xew  York  statute  was  strikingly  different  in  one  respect,  how¬ 
ever,  in  that  the  state  contributed  funds  from  its  treasury  for  the 
support  of  local  schools,  while  in  Massachusetts  the  schools  were 
maintained  wholly  at  local  expense.  In  neither  State  was  there 
any  central  state  supervision. 

A  speech  by  Governor  Clinton  in  1802  indicates  that  the  first 
Common  School  Law  was  a  failure.  The  revival  of  the  common 
school  plan  in  1812  included  the  idea  of  local  supervision  but 
added  the  element  of  state  supervision  by  a  Superintendent  of 
Common  Schools.  The  duties  of  this  office  were  transferred  to  the 


79 


Secretary  of  State  in  1821,  who  administered  them  until  1854 
when  the  office  of  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  was 
created.  Since  1812  the  State  has  maintained  an  unbroken  policy 
of  supervising  public  schools  through  one  state  officer  or  another. 

The  growth  of  educational  policy  in  the  state  of  New  York 
was  rapid  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  State 
increasingly  assumed  responsibility  for  the  education  of  its 
citizens.  Years  before  the  adoption  of  the  educational  section 
of  the  Constitution  of  1894  the  Legislature  was  exercising  its 
rights  with  respect  to  public  education,  and  this  gradual  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  idea  of  state  control  over  this  matter  became  crystal- 
ized  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state  as  Article  IX  of  the 
Constitution  of  1894. 

The  Evolution  of  Public  Education  in  the  Present  City 

of  New  York 

Up  to  1898  when  the  Greater  New  York  Charter  (Chapter  378 
of  the  Laws  of  1897)  became  effective,  the  history  of  education 
in  what  is  now  the  City  of  New  York  was  the  history  of  the 
several  independent  communities  which,  by  consolidation  at  that 
,  time,  or  by  earlier  consolidation  with  the  constituent  munici¬ 
palities,  became  the  Greater  City.  Before  treating  of  the  devel¬ 
opment  subsequent  to  1898,  therefore,  there  will  be  outlined  the 
growth  of  a  public  educational  system  in  the  former  City  of  New 
York,  in  the  City  of  Brooklyn  and  very  briefly  in  what  are  now 
the  other  two  boroughs.  These  sketches  should  afford  a  suffi¬ 
ciently  clear  picture  of  the  experimental  and  inconsistent  char¬ 
acter  of  the  legislative  and  other  provisions  through  which  the 
present  city’s  educational  system  was  developed. 

The  earliest  history  of  education  in  the  territory  now  con¬ 
tained  within  the  City  of  New  York  is  little  different  from  the 
general  history  of  the  State.  Up  to  the  Revolutionary  War  and 
for  some  years  thereafter  there  is  nothing  of  great  significance 
to  differentiate  the  treatment  accorded  to  schools  in  the  City  from 
that  accorded  to  schools  outside  the  City.  But  early  in  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  the  individual  school  history  of  the  City  began, 
and  it  is  at  that  time  that  the  following  outline  commences. 

The  Former  City  of  Neiv  York 

In  1805  there  was  a  new  and  strictly  local  development  in 
educational  policy  in  the  shape  of  the  formation  of  a  society 
incorporated  by  the  Legislature  under  an  act  entitled  “  To  Incor- 


80 


porate  the  Society  Instituted  in  the  City  of  Hew  York  for  the 
Establishment  of  a  Free  School  for  the  Education  of  Poor  Chil¬ 
dren  who  do  not  Belong  to  or  Are  not  Provided  for  by  any 
Religious  Society.” 

The  school  opened  by  this  Society  in  1806  with  funds  pro¬ 
vided  by  private  subscription  marked  the  beginning  of  what  in 
later  years  became  the  public  school  system  of  the  City.  It  soon 
became  evident  that  this  first  school  must  be  followed  by  others, 
and  in  1807  the  Society  obtained  an  appropriation  from  the 
Legislature  and  also  assistance  from  the  municipal  authorities 
to  enable  it  to  furnish  additional  educational  facilities.  These 
early  schools  were,  however,  of  a  strictly  eleemosynary  character. 

In  1808  the  Society’s  name  was  changed  by  the  Legislature  to 
“The  Free  School  Society  of  Hew  York”  and  its  powers  were 
extended  to  cover  ‘"all  children  who  are  the  proper  objects  of  a 
gratuitous  education.”  The  first  apportionment  of  the  State 
common  school  fund  established  in  1805  was  made  in  1815  and 
the  Free  School  Society  then  received  $3,708.14  as  its  share  of 
the  amount  paid  to  the  City  and  County  of  Hew  York.  Under 
the  Act  of  1813  permitting  the  city  to  participate  in  the  common 
school  fund,  the  City’s  portion  was  paid  to  the  Free  School  Society, 
the  Orphan  Asylum  Society,  the  Society  of  the  Economical  School 
in  the  City  of  Hew  York,  the  African  Free  School  and  to  such 
**  incorporated  religious  societies  in  said  City  as  now  support  or 
hereafter  shall  establish  charity  schools  within  the  said  City  who 
may  apply  for  the  same.”  The  State  funds  thus  apportioned 
were  dedicated  solely  to  the  payment  of  teachers’  salaries. 

In  1817,  however,  the  Free  School  Society,  finding  that  the 
Lancasterian  system  was  so  economical  that  the  State  moneys 
were  more  than  enough  for  teachers’  salaries,  secured  permission 
from  the  Legislature  to  apply  the  surplus  to  the  erection  of  build¬ 
ings  or  any  other  needful  purpose.  In  1822  the  Bethel  Baptist 
Church,  which  participated  in  the  common  school  fund  under  the 
law  of  1813,  secured  a  similar  dispensation  from  the  Legislature. 
Considerable  alarm  was  felt  by  the  Free  School  Society  and  by 
the  other  church  schools  lest  this  lead  to  a  perversion  of  State 
school  funds  to  sectarian  rather  than  to  school  purposes.  Repeated 
attempts  were  made  to  have  the  Legislature  repeal  the  exemption 
made  in  favor  of  the  Bethel  Baptist  Church,  but  without  success. 
The  scene  of  the  controversy  was  moved  from  Albany  to  Hew 
York  by  the  passage  of  a  law  in  1824  placing  the  distribution 


81 


of  the  school  fund  for  New  York  City  in  the  hands  of  the  Com- 
t  mon  Council.  In  1825  the  Common  Council  passed  an  ordinance 
excluding  all  religious  societies  from  participation  in  the  income 
from  the  common  school  fund,  leaving  only  the  Free  School 

*  Society,  the  Mechanics’  Society,  the  Orphan  Asylum  Society  and 
the  African  Free  Schools  as  beneficiaries. 

The  Free  School  Society  was  eager  to  extend  the  field  of  its 
operations  and  in  1824  suggested  that  its  schools  which  had 
suffered  from  the  stigma  that  they  were  charity  schools  should 
also  receive  as  pupils  children  of  parents  able  and  willing  to  pay 
small  sums  for  instruction.  In  1826  the  Legislature  granted  a 
new  charter  whereby  the  Society’s  name  was  changed  to  “  The 
Public  School  Society  of  New  York,”  whereby  the  Society  was 
permitted  to  charge  a  moderate  fee  for  instruction,  provided  that 
no  child  be  denied  the  benefits  of  education  because  unable  to 
pay  (this  pay  system  proved  unsuccessful  and  was  abolished  in 
1832),  and  whereby  the  Society  was  authorized 

“  to  convev  their  school  edifices  and  other  real  estate  to  the 
«/ 

Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
upon  such  terms  and  conditions  and  in  such  forms  as  shall 
be  agreed  upon  between  the  parties,  taking  back  from  the 
said  corporation  a  perpetual  lease  thereof  upon  condition 
%  that  the  same  shall  be  exclusively  and  perpetually  applied 

to  the  purposes  of  education.” 

The  Society  was  not  satisfied  with  the  adequacy  of  the  system 
of  schools  existing  in  1828.  It  estimated  that  12,000  children 
between  five  and  twelve  years  of  age  were  entirely  without  means 
of  instruction  and  it  stated  that  the  principle  which  had  led  to 
the  recent  change  from  free  schools  to  public  schools  should  be 
extended  so  that  schools  a  should  be  supported  from  public  reve¬ 
nue,  should  be  public  property,  and  should  be  open  to  all,  not  as 
a  charity  but  as  a  matter  of  common  right.”  The  specific  recom¬ 
mendation  was  then  made  that  a  tax  be  levied  of  half  a  mill  upon 
the  dollar  of  assessed  city  property,  and  a  vigorous  effort  was 
made  to  arouse  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  this  tax  measure,  the 
result  being  the  enactment  by  the  Legislature  in  1829  of  a  tax 
law  levying  a  local  tax  of  one-eightieth  of  one  per  cent. 

^  A  controversy  as  to  the  application  of  public  school  moneys  to 

the  support  of  schools  under  the  control  of  religious  societies  com¬ 
menced  in  1840  and  had  far-reaching  consequences.  The  Roman 

#  Catholic  churches  which  maintained  free  schools  requested  from 


82 


the  Common  Council  a  share  of  the  school  moneys.  Similar 
requests  were  made  by  a  Hebrew  congregation  and  by  the  Scotch 
Presbyterian  church.  They  were  all  strenuously  opposed  by  the 
Public  School  Society  and  were  denied  by  the  Board  of  Assistant 
Aldermen.  The  Catholics  then  petitioned  the  Board  of  Aider- 
men,  which  after  a  public  hearing  on  the  matter,  denied  the 
request. 

The  Legislature  was  the  next  point  of  attack  and  lengthy  mem¬ 
orials  were  submitted  by  the  proponents  and  opponents  of  the 
plan.  All  of  these  documents  were  referred  to  John  C.  Spencer, 
the  Secretary  of  State  and  ex-officio  state  Superintendent  of  Com¬ 
mon  Schools.  Mr.  Spencer  studied  the  entire  problem  and  then 
outlined  a  plan  of  education  in  New  York  City  providing  for  the 
election  of  a  Commissioner  of  Common  Schools  in  each  ward ;  for 
the  extension  of  the  general  school  laws  of  the  State  to  the  City, 
with  certain  modifications ;  for  the  transfer  to  the  elected  Com¬ 
missioners  of  “  the  schools  of  the  Public  School  Society  and  the 
schools  of  the  other  associations  and  asylums  now  receiving  the 
public  money  as  schools  under  their  general  jurisdiction,  leaving 
the  immediate  government  and  management  of  them  to  their 
respective  trustees  and  directors’ 7 ;  for  the  establishment,  by  the 
Commissioners,  of  schools  in  other  parts  of  the  city  as  district 
schools,  and  for  the  payment  of  the  public  school  money  by  the 
Chamberlain  directly  to  the  Commissioners.  The  Legislature  post¬ 
poned  action  until  January,  1842,  and  the  school  question 
became  an  important  issue  in  the  city  campaign. 

In  his  annual  message  for  1842  Governor  Seward  gave  con¬ 
siderable  space  to  the  school  problem  in  New  York  City,  saying 
among  other  things: 

“Happily  in  this,  as  in  other  instances,  the  evil  is  dis¬ 
covered  to  have  had  its  origin  no  deeper  than  in  a  departure 
from  the  equality  of  general  laws.  In  our  general  system  of 
common  schools,  trustees  chosen  by  tax-paying  citizens,  levy 
taxes,  build  school-houses,  employ  and  pay  teachers,  and 
govern  schools  which  are  subject  to  visitation  by  similarly 
elected  inspectors,  who  certify  the  qualifications  of  teachers 
and  all  schools  thus  constituted  participate  in  just  propor¬ 
tion  in  the  public  moneys,  which  are  conveyed  to  them  by 
commissioners  also  elected  by  the  people.  ...  In  the 
public  school  system  of  the  city,  one  hundred  persons  are 
trustees  and  inspectors,  and,  by  continued  consent  of  the 


83 


Common  Council,  are  the  dispensers  of  an  annual  average 
sum  of  $35,000,  received  from  the  Common  School  Fund  of 
the  State,  and  also  of  a  sum  equal  to  $95,000,  derived  from 
an  undiscriminating  tax  upon  the  real  and  personal  estates 
of  the  City  They  build  school-houses,  chiefly  with  public 
funds  and  appoint  and  remove  teachers,  fix  their  compensa¬ 
tion,  and  prescribe  the  moral,  intellectual,  and  religious 
instruction  which  one-eighth  of  the  rising  generation  of  the 
State  shall  be  required  to  receive.  Their  powers,  more  effec¬ 
tive  and  far-reaching  than  are  exercised  by  the  municipality 
of  the  City,  are  net  derived  from  the  community  whose  chil¬ 
dren  are  educated  and  whose  property  is  taxed,  nor  even 
from  the  State,  which  is  so  great  an  almoner,  and  whose 
welfare  is  so  deeply  concerned,  but  from  an  incorporated 
and  perpetual  association,  which  grants,  upon  pecuniary 
subscription,  the  privileges  even  of  life  membership,  and 
yet  holds  in  fee  simple  the  public-school  edifices,  valued  at 
eight  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Lest  there  might  be  too 
much  responsibility,  even  to  the  association,  that  body  can 
elect  only  one-half  of  the  trustees,  and  those  thus  selected 
appoint  their  fifty  associates.  The  philanthropy  and  patrio¬ 
tism  of  the  present  managers  of  the  public  schools,  and  their 
efficiency  in  imparting  instruction,  are  cheerfully  and  grate¬ 
fully  admitted.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  maintain  that  agents 
thus  selected  will  become  unfaithful,  or  that  a  system  that 
so  jealously  excludes  popular  interference  must  necessarily 
be  unequal  in  its  operation.  It  is  only  insisted  that  the  insti¬ 
tution,  after  a  fair  and  sufficient  trial,  has  failed  to  gain 
that  broad  confidence  reposed  in  the  general  system  of  the 
State,  and  indispensable  to  every  scheme  of  universal  edu¬ 
cation.  ...  I  submit,  therefore,  with  entire  willingness  to 
approve  whatever  adequate  remedy  you  may  propose,  the 
expediency  of  restoring  to  the  people  of  the  City  of  New  York 
— what  I  am  sure  the  people  of  no  other  part  of  the  State 
would,  upon  any  consideration,  relinquish — the  education  of 
their  children.  For  this  purpose,  it  is  only  necessary  to  vest 
the  control  of  the  common  schools  in  a  board  to  be  composed 
of  commissioners  elected  by  the  people;  which  board  shall 
apportion  the  school  moneys  among  all  the  schools,  including 
those  now  existing,  which  shall  be  organized  and  conducted  in 
conformity  to  its  general  regulations  and  the  laws  of  the 
State,  in  the  proportion  of  the  number  of  pupils  instructed. 


84 


It  is  not  left  doubtful  that  the  restoration,  to  the  common 
schools  of  the  City,  of  this  simple  and  equal  feature  of  the 
common  schools  of  the  State,  would  remove  every  com¬ 
plaint,  .  . 

By  chapter  150,  Laws  of  1842,  entitled  “An  act  to  extend  to  the 
City  and  county  of  Yew  York  the  provisions  of  the  general  act  in 
relation  to  common  schools  ”  the  Legislature  established  the  first 
Board  of  Education  for  the  City.  The  statute  provided  that  there 
should  be  elected  in  each  ward  at  special  elections  held  in  June, 
two  Commissioners  of  Common  Schools,  two  Inspectors  of  Com¬ 
mon  Schools  and  five  Trustees  of  Common  Schools.  The  Com¬ 
missioners  were  to  constitute  a  Board  of  Education.  The  Board 
had  very  little  power,  however.  Its  importance  can  be  measured 
by  the  fact  that  the  law  required  it  to  meet  at  least  once  in  three 
months.  The  real  authority  was  vested  in  the  ward  officers.  Lmder 
the  statute  each  ward  was  to  be  considered  as  a  town  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  school  administration ;  the  ward  trustees  initiated  new 
school  projects  and  these  projects,  if  approved  by  the  respective 
inspectors  and  commissioners,  became  binding  on  the  city.  The 
supervisors  of  the  city  and  county  were  required  to  raise  annually 
by  tax  a  sum  equal  to  the  amount  of  the  State  apportionment  of 
school  moneys,  plus  a  special  tax  of  one-twentieth  of  one  per  cent 
of  the  total  assessed  valuation,  plus  such  further  amount  as  was 
necessary.  The  Board  of  Education  distributed  the  school  moneys 
among  the  wards  on  the  basis  of  average  attendance,  and  the 
ward  officers  had  charge  of  the  expenditure  of  the  funds.  The 
schools  of  the  Public  School  Society  and  those  of  other  incorpo¬ 
rated  societies  were  continued  under  the  management  of  their 
respective  trustees.  If  was  further  provided  that  no  school  should 
receive  any  portion  of  the  school  moneys  in  which  “  any  religious 
sectarian  doctrine  or  tenet  shall  be  taught,  inculcated  or  practiced.” 

This  act  proved  unsatisfactory  and  was,  therefore,  amended 
in  1843  and  1844.  By  chapter  320,  Laws  of  1844,  passed  May  7, 
1844,  the  same  school  officers  were  provided  for  as  in  the  first 
act,  but  with  a  transfer  of  powers  from  the  ward  officers  to  the 
central  Board  of  Education.  Yew  school  projects  deemed  desir¬ 
able  bv  the  ward  officers  had  to  be  submitted  to  the  Board  of 

c J  * 

Education  for  approval  before  they  became  effective,  with  the 
provision  that  appeals  from  the  Board’s  decision  could  be  made 
to  the  State  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools  whose  determina¬ 
tion  was  binding  for  one  year.  A  form  of  local  supervision  was 


85 


also  established  under  this  act  in  that  it  authorized  the  Board 
of  Supervisors  to  appoint  a  County  Superintendent  of  Common 
Schools  for  a  two-year  term.  The  compensation  of  this  officer 
was  fixed  at  $2.00  a  day  and  necessary  expenses.  The  schools 
established  under  the  Acts  of  1842,  1843  and  1844  were  desig¬ 
nated  as  ward  schools. 

But  the  double  system  of  schools  and  of  public  and  private 
school  control  was  not  a  happy  one.  There  was  friction  between 
the  Board  of  Education  and  the  Public  School  Society  and  in 
1846  the  Board  questioned  the  Society’s  right  to  erect  new  school- 
houses.  A  hearing  was  held  and  the  Board  decided  that  since 
the  Act  of  1844  the  Society  had  had  no  such  right.  The  Society 
appealed  to  the  Legislature  which  in  1848  passed  a  law  legalizing 
those  schools  which  the  Society  had  established  since  May  7, 
1844,  but  providing  that  it  should  establish  no  others  without  the 
consent  of  the  Board  of  Education. 

In  1851  the  Legislature  passed  an  act  (Chapter  386)  “to 
amend,  consolidate  and  reduce  to  one  act  the  various  acts  relative 
to  the  common  schools  of  the  City  of  Hew  York.”  By  this  act 
the  powers  of  the  Board  of  Education  were  materially  enlarged; 
school  funds  were  deposited  in  the  city  treasury  and  withdrawn 
by  the  Board  as  a  whole  instead  of  being  handled  by  the  separate 
commissioners.  The  Board  was  given  authority  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  to  secure  economy  and  accountability  and  was 
authorized  to  appoint  a  City  Superintendent  of  Schools,  Assistant 
Superintendents  and  a  Superintendent  of  School  Buildings.  For 
the  past  ten  years  there  had  been  a  County  Superintendent  of 
Schools  elected  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  hut  he  was  not 
directly  amenable  to  the  Board  of  Education.  The  City  Superin¬ 
tendent  was  now  empowered  to  visit  schools,  inquire  into  all  mat¬ 
ters  pertaining  to  the  administration  thereof  and  to  advise  with 
the  trustees.  The  same  school  officers  were  continued  but  their 
terms  of  office  were  adjusted  to  a  change  made  by  an  earlier 
statute,  whereby  the  special  June  elections  were  abolished  and 
provision  made  for  the  election  of  school  officers  at  the  general 
elections.  The  school  system  was  really  established  on  a  pretty 
independent  basis  by  this  law.  One  very  significant  provision 
required  the  City  to  raise  annually  by  tax  not  only  the  equivalent 
of  the  State  apportionment  as  prescribed  by  the  general  State 
law,  and  not  only  one-twentieth  of  one  percent  on  the  assessed 
valuations  as  prescribed  by  another  special  statute,  but  also  “  such 


86 


additional  sums  as  tlie  Board  of  Education  *  *  *  shall  have 

reported  to  be  necessary.” 

In  1853  the  Legislature  ended  the  dual  control  of  the  City’s 
public  schools  by  joining  the  schools  of  the  Public  School  Society 
and  those  of  the  Board  of  Education  and  providing  for  the  trans¬ 
fer  to  the  City  of  all  the  property  of  the  Public  School  Society. 
The  same  law  provided  for  the  appointment  by  the  Society  from 
among  its  trustees  of  fifteen  commissioners  of  common  schools 
to  hold  office  until  January  1,  1855,  and  also  for  three  trustees 
of  common  schools  “  for  each  ward  of  said  City  in  which  one  or 
more  of  the  schools  of  said  Society  .are  now  established  ”  to  serve 
until  the  first  of  January,  1855,  1856  and  1857,  respectively,  and 
for  the  merging  of  its  schools  into  the  system  of  common  schools 
established  by  law.  In  1853,  therefore,  the  Board  of  Education 
consisted  of  59  members,  two  commissioners  from  each  of  the  22 
wards  and  the  15  representatives  of  the  Public  School  Society. 
The  latter  remained  in  office  until  January  1,  1855,  when  the 
number  of  commissioners  again  became  44.  The  law  also  limited 
to  $4.00  per  pupil  the  amount  which  the  Board  of  Education 
could  require  annually  from  the  City  in  addition  to  the  equivalent 
of  the  State  apportionment  and  to  the  yield  of  the  special  tax  of 
one-twentieth  of  one  per  cent. 

Hine  years  later,  in  1864,  an  act  was  passed  establishing  seven 
school  districts  in  the  City  of  Hew  York  and  reducing  the  Board 
of  Education  from  44  members  elected  by  wards  to  21  members 
elected  bv  districts,  each  district  to  elect  one  commissioner  of 
common  schools  each  year.  The  new  law  also  reduced  the  num¬ 
ber  of  trustees  elected  in  each  ward  from  eight  to  five,  provided 
for  three  inspectors  in  each  of  the  seven  districts  to  be  named  by 
the  Mayer  subject  to  confirmation  by  the  Board  of  Education. 
The  power  of  appointing  teachers  and  janitors  was  retained  by 
the  trustees,  but  nominations  of  principals  and  vice-principals 
made  by  the  trustees  were  subject  to  approval  by  the  Board  of 
Education,  and  the  Board  was  also  given  authority  in  the  matter 
of  the  removal  of  teachers. 

A  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Legislature  of  1867  which, 
although  it  failed  of  passage,  deserves  mention  at  the  present 
juncture.  It  provided  for  the  abolition  of  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion,  the  trustees  and  the  inspectors  and  created  a  commission  of 
seven,  termed  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Instruction,  and 
appointed  by  the  Governor  and  the  Senate.  This  was  to  be  a 
paid  board  and  its  members  were  to  hold  office  for  eight  years. 


In  1869  the  Legislature  passed  an  act  providing  for  a  Board 
of  Education  of  twelve  members  who  were  to  be  appointed  by  the 
mayor  and  to  serve  until  December  31,  1871.  It  was  further 
provided  that  at  the  general  election  of  1871  twelve  Commis¬ 
sioners  of  Common  Schools  should  be  voted  for  on  a  general  ticket, 
recognition  being  given  to  the  principle  of  minority  representa¬ 
tion.  This  law  was  repealed  in  1870,  so  that  the  election  pro¬ 
vided  for  was  never  held. 

The  Act  of  1870  “to  reorganize  the  local  government  of  the 
City  of  Hew  York  ”  was  amended  in  1871  by  Chapter  574,  which 
created  a  Department  of  Public  Instruction  as  one  of  the  depart¬ 
ments  of  the  city  government,  and  turned  over  to  it  all  the  powers 
and  duties  of  the  Board  of  Education.  The  existing  Board  was 
legislated  out  of  office  and  provision  made  for  the  appointment 
by  the  Mayor  of  twelve  commissioners  for  terms  of  five  years, 
recognition  being  given  to  the  principle  of  minority  representa¬ 
tion.  The  Mayor  was  also  authorized  to  appoint  the  school  trus¬ 
tees  and  inspectors.  This  law  did  away  with  the  machinery  of 
ward  and  district  representation  and  created  a  centralized  school 
system  under  the  Mayor. 

But  this  new  arrangement  did  not  last.  By  Chapter  112  of 
the  Laws  of  1873  the  seven  school  districts  set  up  by  the  law  of 
1864  were  re-established,  and  provision  was  made  for  the  appoint¬ 
ment  by  the  Mayor  of  a  Board  of  Education  consisting  of  twenty- 
one  Commissioners  of  Common  Schools  whose  terms  were  for  three 
years.  This  Board  was  empowered  to  appoint  five  trustees  for 
each  ward  for  five  year  terms  and  the  Mayor  was  authorized  to 
appoint  twenty-one  inspectors,  three  from  each  district.  This  sys¬ 
tem  remained  substantially  unchanged  until  1896.  Its  advan¬ 
tages  were  said  to  be  the  removal  of  the  schools  from  political 
supervision,  the  provision  of  moderate  local  control  by  the  trus¬ 
tees,  and  the  establishment  of  centralized  supervision  and  final 
control  by  the  Board  of  Education  without  placing  a  danger¬ 
ously  great  authority  in  the  hands  of  the  central  Board. 

The  next  important  modification  of  the  administrative  machin¬ 
ery  of  the  school  system  was  the  abolition  by  Chapter  387  of  the 
Laws  of  1896  of  the  ward  trustees.  These  officers  had  persisted 
since  1842  and  had  exercised  many  important  powers.  Eor  many 
vears  thev  were  elected  and,  under  the  short-lived  act  of  1871, 
they  were  appointed  by  the  mayor.  After  1873  they  were 
appointed  by  the  Board  of  Education.  The  trustees  were  often 


88 


attacked  by  persons  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  schools.  It  , 
was  claimed  that  some  of  them  were  illiterate;  that  they  were 
appointed  for  political  purposes ;  that  they  considered  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  teachers  as  legitimate  patronage  and  that  they  showed  v 
favoritism  in  promotion  and  in  the  selection  of  contractors.  A 
telling  argument  against  the  ward  trustee  system  was  that  it  was 
absurd  to  use  the  ward  as  a  basis  of  selection,  as  some  wards  had 
very  few  schools  while  other  wards  had  many.  In  1888,  in  the 
second  ward,  for  example,  there  was  only  one  school  with  but  two 
teachers,  while  in  the  twelfth  ward  there  were  499  teachers. 

The  result  of  this  agitation  was  the  passage  of  a  law  by  the 
Legislature  (Chapter  532,  Laws  of  1893)  providing  that  the 
Mayor  should  appoint  a  commission  to  report  to  the  Legislature 
a  comprehensive  revision  of  the  laws  affecting  common  schools 
and  public  education  in  the  City.  This  commission  reported  in 
1894  and  recommended  abolishing  the  inspectors  and  depriving 
the  trustees  of  all  powers  except  those  of  visiting  schools  and 
reporting  on  their  condition.  Some  of  the  trustees7  powers  were 
given  to  the  Board  of  Education  and  others  were  conferred  on  a 
Board  of  Superintendents,  to  consist  of  the  City  Superintendent 
and  twenty  Division  Superintendents.  This  Board  was  given 
large  powers.  Provision  was  also  made  for  a  Superintendent  of 
School  Buildings  and  Supplies.  The  proposed  law  failed  of  pas¬ 
sage  at  the  1894  session.  It  was  reintroduced  in  1895  with  some 
amendments,  but  failed  again. 

Chapter  387  of  the  Laws  of  1896  abolished  the  trustees  and 
gave  the  Mayor  power  to  appoint  five  inspectors  in  each  district 
whose  duty  was  to  visit  schools.  The  statute  also  created  a.  Board 
of  Superintendents,  consisting  of  the  City  Superintendent  and  as 
many  Assistant  Superintendents  as  the  Board  of  Education  might 
deem  necessary.  The  professional  control  of  the  schools  was 
lodged  almost  entirely  in  the  new  Board  of  Superintendents, 
only  a  veto  power  being  given  to  the  Board  of  Education,  whose 
composition  remained  unchanged. 

Brooklyn 

In  Brooklyn  there  was  no  a  Public  School  Society.”  The 
schools  that  were  established  and  maintained  there,  after  the 
recognition  by  the  State  that  education  was  a  matter  of  public 
concern,  were  administered  by  local  authorities  subject  to  the 
general  State  laws. 


89 


As  mentioned  above,  the  State  established  the  common  school 
fund  in  1805.  The  first  distribution  was  made  in  1815,  and  in 
1816  a  local  tax  of  $2,000  was  levied  and  a  common  school 
opened  in  the  village  of  Brooklyn.  Several  other  schools  were 
established  prior  to  the  incorporation  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn  in 
1834  and  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Education  in  1843.  But 
prior  to  1843  all  the  schools  were  organized  as  special  district 
schools.  It  is  true  that  in  1835  a  law  was  passed  (Chapter  129) 
authorizing  the  Common  Council  to  appoint  three  trustees  of  com¬ 
mon  schools  in  each  district,  and  for  the  whole  City  three  inspec¬ 
tors  and  three  commissioners,  but  the  district  organization  was 
still  paramount. 

The  statute  of  1843,  creating  a  Board  of  Education,  provided 
that  the  members  of  the  Common  Council  should  be  Commissioners 
of  Common  Schools  in  and  for  the  Citv,  and  that  on  the  first  Mon- 
day  in  April,  1843,  they  should  appoint  twTo  or  more  persons  to 
represent  each  of  the  school  districts  as  members  of  the  Board  of 
Education.  The  full  term  of  office  was  fixed  at  three  years  and 
the  Mayor  and  Deputy  County  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools 
were  made  members  ex-officio.  The  new  Board  was  organized 
with  only  twenty-eight  appointed  members,  as  in  two  districts 
the  full  number  of  appointments  was  not  made.  The  Board  was 
authorized  in  1848  to  appoint  a  City  Superintendent  of  Common 
Schools,  the  office  of  County  Superintendent  having  been  abolished 
bv  statute  in  1847. 

t 

By  Chapter  143  of  the  Laws  of  1850  the  Board  of  Education 
was  made  to  consist  of  thirty-three  members  appointed  by  the 
Common  Council.  The  law  provided  that  at  least  one  member 
should  reside  in  each  district.  The  term  of  office  continued  to 
be  three  years.  The  law  of  1854  annexing  the  City  of  Williams¬ 
burg  and  the  town  of  Bushwick  to  Brooklyn  required  the  Com¬ 
mon  Council  to  appoint  additional  members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  for  the  new  part  of  the  City,  and  that  body  fixed  the 
membership  at  forty-five,  of  whom  thirteen  were  to  be  residents 
of  the  new  territory.  This  number  remained  unchanged  through¬ 
out  the  rest  of  the  Board’s  existence.  In  1862  the  Mayor  was 
given  authority  to  nominate  members  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
subject  to  confirmation  by  the  Common  Council. 

In  1873  the  charter  was  amended  by  providing  that  there  should 
be  a  Department  of  Public  Instruction  in  Brooklyn  under  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  Board  of  Education;  that  the  City  Superintendent  of 


90 


Schools  should  be  called  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc¬ 
tion;  that  his  term  should  be  increased  from  one  to  three  years 
and  that  the  Board  of  Education  might  appoint  two  Associate 
Superintendents  for  three-year  terms. 

The  amended  charter  which  was  passed  May  25,  1880,  pro¬ 
vided  that  any  vacancy  in  the  Board  of  Education  occurring  dur¬ 
ing  the  remainder  of  1880  should  be  filled  by  the  Mayor  and 
Comptroller  (an  act  passed  June  16,  1880,  provided  that  in  case 
the  Mayor  and  Comptroller  failed  to  agree,  the  Auditor  of  the 
City  should  become  one  of  the  appointing  powers),  and  any 
vacancy  during  1881  should  be  filled  by  the  Mayor  alone.  After 
January  1,  1882,  the  sole  power  of  appointment  was  with  the 
Mayor.  Some  confusion  resulted  in  1886  from  the  fact  that  the 
amended  charter  fixed  two-year  terms  for  the  heads  of  all  city 
departments  without  specifically  mentioning  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion  whose  members  had  been  serving  three-year  terms.  In  1882 
Mayor  Low  acted  on  the  assumption  that  the  Legislature  had  not 
intended  to  change  the  term  of  office  of  Board  members  and  made 
regular  three-year  appointments.  His  successor,  in  1886,  took 
the  other  view,  declared  vacancies  and  made  appointments  on  the 
two-year  theory  and  doubt  was  cast  on  the  legality  of  some  of  the 
Board's  acts.  In  1887  the  Legislature  settled  the  matter  by  spe¬ 
cifically  extending  the  terms  of  the  1885  and  1886  appointees 
and  establishing  the  three-year  term. 

One  unique  feature  of  the  Brooklyn  public  school  system  can¬ 
not  be  left  untouched  upon.  The  by-laws  of  the  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion  of  1843  provided  for  district  committees  consisting  of  the 
Board  members  for  each  district.  The  schools  of  the  district  were 
especially  committed  to  these  committees.  This  scheme  lasted  but 
a  short  time,  being  followed  by  the  local  school  committee,  pro¬ 
vided  for  by  an  amendment  to  the  by-laws  made  soon  after  the 
reorganization  necessitated  by  the  statute  of  1850.  These  local 
school  committees  consisted  of  three  members  for  each  school.  In 
the  course  of  time  these  committees  acquired  large  powers  in  the 
appointment  and  promotion  of  teachers,  in  the  making  of  repairs, 
etc.,  until  they  were  practically  supreme  in  their  respective  schools. 
This  svstem  was  continued  until  the  abolition  of  the  Brooklyn 

e/  «/ 

school  board  in  1902  and  was  even  then  carried  over  as  Section 
1103  of  the  first  Greater  Hew  York  charter.  The  abuses  of  the 
local  committee  system,  particularly  with  respect  to  the  appoint¬ 
ment  and  promotion  of  teachers,  were  repeatedly  the  subject  of 
criticism. 


91 


Queens  and  Richmond . 

The  Borough  of  Queens  is  composed  of  several  formerly  inde¬ 
pendent  communities,  such  as  Newtown,  Flushing  and  Jamaica. 
The  early  history  of  education  is  the  history  of  these  separate 
towns.  The  towns  became  school  districts  under  the  general  State 
law,  the  subdivision  in  Newtown  taking  place  in  1814,  and  schools 
were  established  from  time  to  time.  In  1870  a  portion  of  New¬ 
town  was  incorporated  as  Long  Island  City  and  the  schools  were 
placed  under  the  city  government  in  charge  of  a  Board  of  Educa¬ 
tion  of  five  members  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  The  village  of 
Flushing  was  incorporated  in  1837.  In  1848  it  was  provided  with 
a  Board  of  Education  of  five  members  elected  by  the  people. 

In  neither  Queens  nor  Richmond,  however,  was  there  any 
central  organization  in  charge  of  the  public  schools.  There  were 
numerous  school  districts  and  district  officers,  but  not  until  the 
incorporation  of  these  two  boroughs  into  the  Greater  City  was, 
there  anything  that  resembled  centralized  local  school  authority. 


* 


r 


b 


L 

d 


- 


I 


*■ 


» 


